Tesla Motors strongly disagrees with the recently proposed changes to the ZEV Mandate as reflected in the staff’s “Initial Statement of Reasons” (ISOR) dated February 8, 2008 and is lobbying against the proposed changes. President and CEO Ze’ev Drori will speak at the Board meeting this week to communicate our position directly to the board.

On March 12th, 2008, Ze’ev sent the letter below to outline Tesla’s position directly to CARB Chairperson Mary Nichols. In addition, Tesla developed a whitepaper rebutting the faulty conclusions of the CARB ZEV Expert Panel Position on Lithium Ion Full-Performance Battery Electric Vehicles.

I am writing to you in my capacity as the President and CEO of Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley manufacturer of a widely acclaimed EPA, DOT, NHTSA and CARB certified zero emission battery-powered electric automobile. I have well founded concern about the recently proposed changes to the California Zero Emissions Mandate as reflected in the staff’s Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) dated February 8, 2008. If adopted as proposed, key provisions of the ISOR would needlessly weaken the intended purpose of the Zero Emissions Mandate, if not make a mockery of CARB itself.

On the very first page of the Initial Statement of Reasoning (ISOR), the staff wrote, “The Board adopted Resolution 07-18 directing CARB staff to return to the Board with proposed changes that address the state of technologies needed to meet the regulation. In directing that changes were needed, the Board affirmed its support for the program and emphasized that any changes should strengthen the overall objective of the program”. The staff echoed this directive by asserting that “the proposed amendments are expected to maintain pressure on the commercialization of PURE ZEV technologies” (p. ii, top paragraph).

In order to fulfill the Board directive the staff’s experts have evaluated various zero emission technologies and have concluded, “Given the current state of Battery technology staff doesn’t anticipate that manufacturers will produce any battery EV prior to 2012” (p. 29, last paragraph).

I assure you that Tesla Motors is in production of road-worthy fully certified battery powered ZEVs. I would like to emphasize that these cars are neither a “pipe dream” nor are they exotic one-of-a-kind creations. We have designed, developed and produced, withoutbenefit of any state or federal aid, a remarkable and commercially viable battery powered zero emissions automobile. What’s more, we are currently ramping up production that will reach an annual rate in excess of 1800 cars.

It seems clear that you have been misinformed about the availability of pure ZEVs and that the staff has erred in recommending that the Board substantially loosen for years to come, requirements that can in fact be met today.

What erroneous recommendations did the staff make?

Rather then recommend an increase in the minimum number of pure ZEV required in the years 2012-2014, the ISOR asks for 90% reduction from 25,000 to a mere 2,500 (p.26 section 4.1). Is this in line with “maintaining the pressure on the commercialization of pure ZEV technologies”?

What’s more, the ISOR proposes substitution of pure ZEVs with up to 90% Enhanced AT PZEVs in Phase III and substitution of up to 50% pure ZEVs with Enhanced AT PZEVs in Phase IV.

In their own words the staff proposal, if adopted, will decrease the number of pure ZEVs by 2/3 from 75,000 to 25,000 (page iii, last paragraph) between the years 2012 to 2017. How does one reconcile this with the Board’s stated mission and directive to “strengthen the overall objective of the program”?

The ISOR is extremely concerned about the cost of compliance to automotive giants and foreign car makers, in their own words, “The proposed amendments to the ZEV program are projected by CARB staff to reduce the cost of compliance for automobile manufacturers.” It’s entirely illogical to grant a relief to the most prosperous auto makers such as BMW, Mercedes, and Volkswagen by proposing that these foreign car makers will be exempted from delivering pure ZEVs for a period of twelve years as they transition from intermediate volume manufacturer (IVM) to a large volume manufacturer (LVM). The ISOR reasons that it was warranted in order “to provide additional time to develop full ZEV technologies” (p. 22, the paragraph below table 3.9).
Unequivocally no automobile manufacturer should be granted a waiver, an exemption or a delay in fully complying with the pure ZEV requirements. The CARB requirements were not sprung on the automakers suddenly. All manufacturers knew of these requirements for years and should they really wanted to comply they certainly have much more financial and engineering resources than Tesla, yet Tesla has done it. Tesla dispels the notion that it can’t be done. It’s transparent that rather than take seriously CARB’s requirements and work on a timely compliance the car makers have opted to rely on their considerable lobbying power.

Staff mistakenly has concluded, “Because the proposed amendments are anticipated to reduce costs faced by California businesses, they would have no adverse impact on the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states” (p.35, section 6.8), where in fact the opposite is true. The staff proposals if enacted will have a severe adverse impact on Tesla, the only car maker based in California since having the ability to sell the accumulated ZEV rights mitigates in part some of the large costs incurred by the company in the development of a pure ZEV car. The staff recommendation is disturbing since in essence, not only it would substantially weaken the ZEV program, but it will also bestow a financial windfall on rich foreign auto makers and domestic giants while at once penalizing a California based ZEV manufacturer. This untenable proposition is not only illogical but in fact contravenes both the letter and the spirit of the State’s own code (sections 11346.3 and 11346.5 of the government code).

Chairperson Nichols, with all the compelling evidence and facts provided, it is apparent that CARB must reject staff recommendation for granting any reduction, delays or reliefs in fully implementing the present requirements for pure ZEVs. In fact CARB is now in a position to accelerate the schedule and increase the number of pure ZEVs mandated.

Pure ZEVs are being produced NOW in California for Californians. I will be receiving my Tesla Roadster in just a few short months. As gasoline is teetering at the $4 per gallon mark, while our soldiers continue to DIE in Iraq as they fight over the last 20 years or so of oil LEFT IN THE WORLD, while hunderds of thousands of innocent Iraqis die so that I can drive my gas-guzzler to work, now is not the time for CARB to reduce pressure on the big automakers to deliver pure ZEVs.

Correct CARB's mistake from nearly a decade ago and do not penalize a California ZEV manufacturer and employer at the same time. Let's stop our addiction to foreign oil now.

Good response, Ze'ev. It's sad that CARB is considering taking steps in the wrong direction. I have to say I don't quite understand it...Come on Whitestar!

M A Spath

5:56pm | Mar 24, 2008

I hope the CARB board doesn't change the ZEV Mandate. Even though I live in the state of New York, I'm a bit nervous for Tesla Motors and the other small companies who are trying to make a difference.

Paul Holt

5:59pm | Mar 24, 2008

How can a recommendation based on clearly incorrect data get through CARB? I think we should send a dozen Teslas down to protest at the CARB office and disupt their proceedings by revving their engines loudly and continuously. No wait, that might not work :)

Seriously, some sort of photo op with ZEVs painted with "I don't exist", and "Neither do I"?

"It seems clear that you have been misinformed about the availability of pure ZEVs and that the staff has erred in recommending that the Board substantially loosen for years to come, requirements that can in fact be met today."

The points in the piece speak for themseles, but the sheer reality of the Roadster as well as its popular appeal I think are worthy enough to warrant maintaining or improving pro-ZEV CARB standards- even for one car. One car, produced by a comparatively underfunded silicon valley compaby with no affiliation to the ICE, gasoline-fueled norm.

Which car company(ies) should recive the break here?

And the fact that the Roadster is not a pipedream, nor a one-off exotic, underlines the following fact that the requisite battery technology (technology that other volume auto manufacturers are apparently struggling to produce) is not a pipe dream or one-off either.

I lament the bitter absence of high-performing BEV's in the marketplace which by now should exist, cars that run over 200 miles on a battery charge and can at least exceed 100 mph- but that only makes the Roadster shine brighter to its propenents and more glaringly to its opponents.

David

6:30pm | Mar 24, 2008

I am torn between my inherent distaste of government intervention and my disgust with the prospect of changing the rules... as bad and counterproductive as it is for the government to involve itself in private enterprise in the first place, it is worse for them to change the rules after substantial investment had been made in anticipation of their largess... Tesla has repeatedly stated that its financial analysis did not include expected returns from the ZEV credits (though it nice gravy), I feel bad for the poor scmucks over at Pheonix Motor who built their business plan on the expectation of the goverment handout.

By the way, there are over 1,200 comments. I can't seem to figure out the CARB website, but they don't make it too easy to see more than the first 188.

Matthew Flaschen

6:57pm | Mar 24, 2008

I'm sure Tesla's position here is based significantly on their own prospective profit, as admitted by "The staff proposals if enacted will have a severe adverse impact on Tesla, the only car maker based in California since having the ability to sell the accumulated ZEV rights [...]" However, I agree with Tesla that CARB is wrong as a factual matter. It's on thing to say, "The proposed amendments to the ZEV program are projected by CARB staff to reduce the cost of compliance for automobile manufacturers.", which is true and shows CARB's desire to appease the industry. It's quite another to wrongly claim, "Given the current state of battery technology, staff does not anticipate that manufacturers will produce any battery EVs prior to 2012." when Tesla and others are already doing so.

Mark Tomlinson

7:43pm | Mar 24, 2008

Anon (if that IS your real name),

Tesla Motors has always been active in politics; check out previous blog postings. This just continues to raise my respect for the company.

Consider that the big automakers always lobby for protectionism. Whereas Tesla is actually lobbying for action that will increase competition. The Roadster is sold out through 2009 and demand is building for the Whitestar. Tesla does not require the Zero Emissions Mandate. But keeping the bar high is the right thing to do, and so Tesla Motors is lobbying for that.

If you go all the way to the bottom of this page, you will see that BMW and volswagen are of course supporting this proposition.

but you know what really makes me be mad. THE PEOPLE SUBMITTING THIS COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THESE COMPANIES LIVE OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA, in states such as Minnessota and New jersey. of couse they don't care what happens the the rules in california, because they live in other states.

:[

milos

12:06am | Mar 25, 2008

That website is a joke. Typical government. If you want to read more than the first 188 comments, use this URL and add any comment number at the end (up to 1275 as of Tues. 1 am.). Are they trying to imply that they didn't get many comments?

Californian people don’t delay too much to go on with the electric cars. They are a good future for the environment and to stop with the sick dependence of oil and respective lobby at the present moment. The actual technology and spirit of American citizens can do that.
The world is waiting for new solutions developed and materialized in America.
Let´s go on.

I wish you all @ Tesla good luck and I hope the mandate will not change. But whatever happens, I do not think that this time the revolution of greener cars can be stopped. A change in the mandate could however be a problem for niche manufactuerers like Tesla Motors. I cross my fingers...

Kevin Harney

5:39am | Mar 25, 2008

I wish I was in CA so I could do something. But alas I am stuck here on the east coast :( But I have to agree that 10-15 Roadsters sitting out in front of the meeting would be a HUGE display of errors in the staff recommendation. That with some really good press coverage could close the door. Perhaps this would also be a GREAT time to announce the WHITESTAR !!!!! Which is much less exotic than a $100,000 sports car.

Appeal to their greed! I wrote this
Dear Sir/Madam,
I was dismayed to today learn of the proposed changes to the Z.E.V. mandate, which fly in the face of both public opinion (I suspect) and economic prudence. A cursory examination of the field will reveal that the production of 'pure' E.V.'s is moving forward at unprecedented pace, and moreover that it is Californian firms (notably Tesla Motors) who are currently at the forefront.
Big auto are well aware which way the wind is blowing, and that internal combustion (which is after all 100 year-old technology!) is on the verge of being superceeded. Farsighted public policy now will ensure huge future competitive advantage for the state of California when the tipping point is reached, which, although difficult to imagine, may be as little as 3-5 years from now.
Aside from the unrivalled green credentials and international attention this would attract, it is also prudent to nurture what will be among the 21st centuries largest industries.

Yours Faithfully
Adam Merza

Jason M. Hendler

5:58am | Mar 25, 2008

With all due respect, Tesla Motors FAILED to ship vehicles months ago, when they promised, and you only have one vehicle delivered, with over 2 months of no further deliveries to show. If I were CARB, I would consider your vehicles as still prototypes, as you are not continuously rolling them off the production line. Since NO other manufacturer has as conventionally performing ZEV in production, CARB has no choice but to push back their mandates - way to go. You only needed to start production in October to convice CARB you were for real, but you FAILED.

I believe CARB should rewrite their mandate to give significant credit to automakers that provide significant initial ranges of all electric driving, say greater than 20 miles. These range extended vehicles are far more likely to be purchased than the more expensive all electric vehicles, especially until EV's can be rapidly recharged.

I am writing to you in regard to the adoption of amendments to the 2008 amendments to the California Zero Emissions Vehicle Regulation.

As a resident of New Jersey I look over to the west with some admiration; an admiration of the direct influence and governance that has been applied with respect to the environment of California.

It is therefore, with some disappointment that I read that the pressure being exerted on the auto-industry to work towards a better environment has once again been diminished.

What I find more troubling is that the statements being made by the staff of the C.A.R.B. don’t appear to be accurate; if such inaccurate statements as “Given the current state of Battery technology staff doesn’t anticipate that manufacturers will produce any battery EV prior to 2012” (p. 29, last paragraph) are released to the broader public when, companies such as Tesla Motors (in your own back-yard), SMART and others in Europe are producing exactly that today, the damage to the reputation of C.A.R.B. will leave the organisation in taters with little left in the way of credibility.

I urge you to carefully consider and reject the staff recommendation for granting any reduction, delays or reliefs in fully implementing the present requirements for pure ZEVs.

Michael Thwaite

Malcolm Wilson

7:50am | Mar 25, 2008

Woah there Jason, where did the "no choice" come from? Last time I checked California is still part of a democracy and in spite of the small number of vehicles, Tesla still punches above it's weight in terms of publicity and State officials HATE being made to look stupid.

I agree that the vote may not go Tesla's way, but that will only serve to generate even more publicity. Americans love an American underdog.

I agree that a new Whitestar press release on Thursday in Sacramento would be great timing. Any chance?

After all of the hearings this week how long do they typically take to make a decision and recommendation ? When will we know what their intentions are ....

Roger A. Simoneau

10:54am | Mar 25, 2008

Off Topic: Possible feature enhancement.

With the excitement over the Tesla, this idea may have been posted before so I apologize if it's already been mentioned.

A feature I'd like to see would be a "trip estimator". It could be set up to record the energy requirements for a given driver. A person's driving style tends to be pretty consistent over time whether that person likes fast-take offs or otherwise. The energy requirements for a given driver would be pretty consistent as a result.

Simply recording how much energy was used and the distance driven would provide basic information so an estimate could be provided on how far a person could travel on the current energy available. That way the display could provide an estimate of how far a person could travel as well as the existing battery charge percentage.

My Thanks for everything Tesla Motors has done, and everything that will be done, to making the electric car a reality.

jay

1:15pm | Mar 25, 2008

Anon,

Do you work for Exxon? :) Seriously, the regulation actually promotes competition in the electric arena.

I am not from California but If California could keep leading the way in electric vehicles, the rest of the country will soon follow. If Tesla influenced GM and caused GM to start to look at producing the Volt, then surely maintaining the current values would continue this trend.

By the way, who wants to continue our addiction to oil? This may only be one step in getting America off oil but regardless of what any of us think, we should all applaud this effort by Tesla to maintain the CARB standards. Oil keeps us in wars, harms the environment, etc. Let's try to end our addiction.

Well-Written White Paper by Tesla, with hyperbole 'restrained' (that part was refreshing.
The other nice thing was indications of other manufacturer's serious plans.

For those who don't like gov't regulation, I agree, but the only thing worse than that is
Constantly Changing Regulations. Gov't should not keep changing the playing field, since
businesses can't foresee the future environment.

It stands to reason that as electric car rollout occurs, there will be much more money in
the battery business, so buisnesses will have incentive to lower the cost/kwh of storage.

The future indeed looks Bright!

- Bill

jay

2:57pm | Mar 25, 2008

Editor,

Which staff member are we supposed to call or email? The link takes me to a bunch of the staff. By the way, do we have phone numbers or email addresses for the Board? If so, can you post them here so we can contact them and ask them to not reduce the standards?

jay

3:21pm | Mar 25, 2008

Everyone,

I did find the fax number for CARB. I think a fax is better than just posting comments on the internet. I called but the person who answered the phone had no idea what a ZEV was nor who I should talk to about the meeting. She said we had to know who to ask for regarding the meeting. If we can get that person's name, I suggest we all call as well as fax and email. I did send a fax to Chairwoman Nichols. The fax is: (916) 445-5025.

Kevin Harney

4:47pm | Mar 25, 2008

Google says that 10 other states will follow the CARB decision. That is 20% of the country at least especially if the other 9 states are close to the size of CA. THAT IS HUGE !!!!!

Kevin Harney

4:48pm | Mar 25, 2008

Oh my question was which 10 states ?!?!?! Anyone know ????

Nathan

4:49pm | Mar 25, 2008

Ze’ev and Elon:

How about a November Initive/s on the Ballot?

One proposition could be that the Citizens of California order CARB to implement a ZEV + Plug In Hybred mandate without any "wiggle room". You guys at Tesla can write the law and include incentives to ZEV owners and Plug In Hybred Owners.

Another suggestion could be for a Federal Government (under a Democratic President) eminant domain action against GM--Chevron to seize all patents/materials associated with the EV1 and Large Format Battery technology. These patents would then be in the public domain, to be developed/used by any manufacturer in the US---there could be a "payment" to GM-Chevron, just like in any eminant domain action.

It gets Tesla into the Political Area---but I've got news for ya'.............if you ramp up production and build the White Star-----you will be in the Political Area even if you don't want to be.

A WhiteStar announcement would only be helpful if it is a ZEV and not as widely suspected a Hybrid like the Volt.
As "Who Killed the Electric Car" showed engineering facts only work if the board members are blind to external forces. They are obviously not, so the best hope is ZEV supporters supply a sufficient counter-force to the lobbying efforts of the largest manufacturing conglomerates in the world.
As sunshine is best disinfectanct, Will anyone post a video of the highlights from Board's hearings and backgrounds on each board members (perhaps their conflicts of interest)? UTube, etc? Will the local / national media cover the event?
The next movie shouldn't be "Who saved the Electric Car" rather "David tells Goliath an Inconvinient Truth - Consumers will pay (a premium) for a ZEV."

Jacob

6:20pm | Mar 25, 2008

What the heck needs to be said/done to get through people's heads?
We are running out of time. Our children are depending on us to make sure this world doesn't fall apart in their lifetimes.
Between the oil companies and the big auto makers, I don't know who is worse. Maybe they really are one and the same.
What a huge force to deal with. Something drastic needs to be done. Something that brings this to national attention and I'm talking by tomorrow. IMHO, there is only one way we can do this in that timeframe. I suggest somehow, people need to contact as many staffers related to each of the presidential candidates and inform them what is happening and how urgent the matter actually is.
All I have heard is negative political battering of each other. They all talk about the need for change. WELL, put your money where your mouth is and do something right now. Stand up and bring this issue to the forefront and do it now. Not next week, not next month, not next year, NOW.
Obama, you want change, here is your chance to do something only you or Hillary can do in one day. Make the entire nation aware of what is happening and shout it from the highest mountain. You are the right man, in the right place, at precisely the right time to impact not only the entire country, but to bring about change in what our auto makers are damaging and turn this country around and get rid of the oil and lead this country to the forefront of CHANGE. You want something that can unify us all, HERE IT IS ON A SILVER PLATTER!
IS ANYONE LISTENING? IS ANYONE OUT THERE?

Peter J Hedge

6:27pm | Mar 25, 2008

Re: Proof is in the pudding

Maybe chairperson Nichols should be given the opportunity of taking one of the Roadsters for a spin (before the meeting of course). I've yet to hear anything but praise from anyone who has driven it.

Also, I realize the "Aptera" isn't exactly "new news" but I hadn't heard of it before. So apologies to anyone who had.

Peter J Hedge
Victoria, BC

Max

8:16pm | Mar 25, 2008

Wow!!!

Great writing. Thanks for posting this comment publicly!

Mr Drori, I'm in awe of you!

If it's possible, please post your upcoming speech at the C.A.R.B. as a video, or at the very least the transcript of it. As a northern California resident I am very proud of Tesla for standing up for ZEV regulation.

-Max

David Kosowsky

8:42pm | Mar 25, 2008

I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like grounds for a class action law suit. The rules were set. Tesla and other California car companies like Phoenix Motor, etc. invested hundreds of millions of dollars, in part based on those rules. Tesla should position itself to stand on it's own with ZEV credits or without, but fair is fair.

I blogged about the above action at my own site http://www.mathpuzzle.com/ -- but the impending action of the CARB needs to be mentioned on Digg, Slashdot, BoingBoing, all of those sites.

Kevin Harney

5:59am | Mar 26, 2008

Applause to Dr. Simpson - that is an awesome white paper. Perhaps next time you can put words on the paper instead LOL :) Seriously - good work.

Kevin Harney

6:27am | Mar 26, 2008

Also, Dr. Simpson seems to insinuate that the Whitestar will be a pure ZEV as his projections of Telsa's volume are at 10,000 in 2010 which obviously must include some Whitestars and he says this "Furthermore, Tesla Motors expects to exceed the ZEV Regulation requirement for pure ZEVs solely with its own volumes." Therefore Whitestar must be a pure ZEV.

Gil

8:48am | Mar 26, 2008

If the media spotlight focuses on CARB before the decision is made on March 27th, CARB would be shamed into not making any changes to the mandate for fear of looking like they are caving into pressure from the large car manufacturers. Perhapse Mr. Drori should try to get an appearance on CNN.

Chris

10:10am | Mar 26, 2008

Personally I am a little disappointed this blog was posted so close to the deadline. I like the content and I agree that the mandate/policy should not be changed by CARB. Unfortunately (for those of us who don't regularly follow news about CARB) the shorter timeframe makes it tougher to speak up and express our opinions so that CARB might actually take notice.

I am also wondering how long Tesla's development cycle was (its on the site somewhere). With their deeper pockets shouldn't the established auto makers be able to produce a fully electric car in less time than Tesla? I suspect it is largely a question of will - the status quo is undoubtedly cheaper in the short term.

And yes I would love to every drivable Tesla parked outside the CARB meeting. I think it could be turned into a wonderful promotional opportunity for Tesla and it could make any decision to delay/reduce ZEV and BEV vehicles look silly.

Is there any chance that the video of the TV report you mentioned is available online somewhere? I've been watching Aptera for a while, but was hoping the TV report might include actual video of a prototype in action. Reading the text from the link you posted, I am not too happy to see that the pure BEV version seems to be not "just around the corner," but "just around the corner after that."

Timothy W.

11:22am | Mar 26, 2008

I'd rather see a Whitestar mule parked at the doorstep of the CARB meeting myself... but I'm just impatient to see what it looks like. >_>

I support your Governor's agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
25% by 2020.

The most promising way to reach this goal is to give consumers the
choice to buy Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs).

Unfortunately, your California Air Resources Board (CARB) may
reduce the number of ZEVs required of automakers by 90%, settling
for only 2,500 from 2012-2014.

As CARB chair, Mary Nichols, I'm counting on you and your Board
to:
1. Require the full 25,000 ZEVs that automakers promised for
2012-2014, and
2. Create a separate requirement for plug-in hybrids that lets
them replace the dirtiest vehicles in CARB's regulations, rather
than the cleanest ZEVs.

I imagine it was an oversight by Ze'ev but he began his letter to CARB with "Chairman Nichols" and ended it "Chairperson" Nichols.

I've never understood why we now tend to use the masculine "Actor" instead of "Actress" or "Comedian" instead of "Comedienne" or even the neutral "person" when the individual concerned is female and almost certainly proud of it.

"With all due respect, Tesla Motors FAILED to ship vehicles months ago, when they promised, and you only have one vehicle delivered, with over 2 months of no further deliveries to show. If I were CARB, I would consider your vehicles as still prototypes, as you are not continuously rolling them off the production line. Since NO other manufacturer has as conventionally performing ZEV in production, CARB has no choice but to push back their mandates - way to go. You only needed to start production in October to convice CARB you were for real, but you FAILED."

With my due respect, your comment doesn't fit at all: we are talking about technology and not production of cars. Battery technology to create reliable electric cars exists since the '90s and probably before. CARB must be aware of that and can't sate the opposite. Reliable battery technology to make electric cars exists today, it's a reality and can't be ignored, no matter if ANY producer has already made such a car or not.

CARB should listen more to the engineers than to auto-makers, CARB should ask to battery technology engineers as well independent research firms if such a battery technology exists and it is reliable, not ask to the administration/management of major automakers.

I perfectly agree with Tesla and I will take my actions.

Regards,
Fabrizio Ferrari, CEO
Virtual Sheet Music Inc.

Darin Ladd

2:16pm | Mar 26, 2008

Fellow posters--

While I am in complete agreement with you all that climate change and national security are both major concerns created by the oil industry, and also agree that that zero-emmission vehicles are a significant step in the right direction of fixing this problem, let us all remember that any regulation, however benign, has second- and third-order effects that are unintended and sometimes equally detrimental.

To be sure, my confidence for an oil-free future lies with this technology, and also with a belief that an increase in the price of oil, and decrease in the price of electric vehicles will hasten this future. Right now, this is happening all by itself at a pace that the market can tolerate. My recommendation, for those who wish to hasten this future, is that you buy electric vehicles at their current price (which will, in a few years, drive unit costs down to a rate competitive with that of ICE vehicles). What this means is that those who really care about hastening this reality bear the costs, instead of those who cannot afford it (and don't understand it). How much more powerful is it to act as a role-model to your peers instead of bringing the long (and indiscriminate) arm of the law down upon them?

I realize this position is likely to be unpopular; however, I post this to remind everyone that an oil-free future and the free market are not mutually-exclusive. The real power to make change happen lies within you, not in a regulation.

I stand by to address any of your (respectful) responses.

Robert Lemke

2:56pm | Mar 26, 2008

My 2 cents worth, below is my email to CARB, as I live in California. Thanks for the heads up Ze'ev.

I hope CARB will not support any amendments to the ZEV regulations. Years ago I was disappointed when the ZEV program bowed to the auto and oil industry. We need to stop using any carbon fuel for any personal transportation. California led the way in the late 60's demanding unleaded gas, now it is world wide. We all know what a poison lead is, so I believe California should be credited with the saving of lives the world over. It is time again for California to show the world a safer means of personal transportation and keep the time tables and teeth in the current ZEV mandate.

Respectfully,

Robert P. Lemke

Roger Richardson

3:35pm | Mar 26, 2008

Darin -

It appears that over 1000 of us have.

Don Larson

4:36pm | Mar 26, 2008

Thank you for the informative white paper and for setting up the opportunity to respond to the CARB by email. Sorry I didn't see your post earlier, but my email opposing any ZEV mandate reduction just went out.

Howie

7:47pm | Mar 26, 2008

Send a massive number of pro-ZEV Mandate emails to Governor Schwarzeneggar.

Subject: Proposed Amendments to the California Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation
Comment:
I support the statements put forward in the letter dated March 12,
2008 written by Ze'ev Drori to Chairman Nichols.

In particular I would like to say that the 90% reduction in the
number of ZEV's seems excessive and unwarranted. It greatly
reduces the motivation to reach the goal of having not just one
marketable ZEV, but a variety of them to choose from. Thus
creating marketplace competition and ultimately eliminating
regulatory pressure needed to accelerate this needed change.

As Mr. Drori stated in his letter, "the manufacturers knew of
these requirements for years and should they really wanted to
comply they certainly have much more financial and engineering
resources than Tesla, yet Tesla has done it."

If Mr Driori's competitors choose to drag their feet, then let
them lose market share or else let them pay royalties to someone
who can show them how it can be done.

Jim Mapes

9:22pm | Mar 26, 2008

While the idea of the ZEV mandate is laudable, I have to agree that it represents over-governance of a socialistic nature that is anathema to the ideals of the the USA & the freedoms bought over 2 centuries from the stagnant socialist ex-monarchies of Europe. ZEV forced & then undermined the EV1 project. Nothing mandated Tesla Motors to come up with their product but the ideals of some visionaries. That gets a lot more mileage to market than a forced product which gets pulled the moment the producer isn't under pressure. Tesla's voluntary production of these vehicles with intent to appeal to the market will yield far better products that we will all be better served by.

Market principles will serve to correct things better over the long haul and cost the taxpayers less money than 1,000 meetings, adminocrats & regulations on what & how much (quotas...) can be produced. If someone wants to make low mileage vehicles and can find buyers willing to pay the rising cost of fossil fuel when commercially viable alternatives like Tesla's products are in the market - let them. Within the next several years they will be producing overstock as no one will want to foot the operating costs.

Jason M. Hendler

5:26am | Mar 27, 2008

The AP reports that the review board's recommendation is to offset the 20,000 fewer ZEV's with 75,000 gas/electric hybrids:

This sounds like a much better plan, as it is realistic. As far as Tesla Motors is concerned, does TM really want the leading automakers to be forced to dump ZEV's on the CA market at a loss, in competition with Tesla's vehicles? How many $100K Roadsters would TM sell, if GM was dumping 100's or 1,000's of ZEV's on the CA market at any price at which they HAD to sell them, just so they could continue to sell all their other vehicles? GM can amortize their losses over tens or hundreds of thousands of vehicles per year, no big deal.

This CARB change would allow Tesla Motors to continue to be the high price, high performance ZEV provider, with no product dumping to undermine their premium prices.

Kevin Harney

6:04am | Mar 27, 2008

Jim,

The mandate does not say they HAVE to produce the ZEVs. What is says is if they do not produce the ZEVs they will not be able to sell their product in CA. It is still theire choice to give up the market share.

Steve

7:49am | Mar 27, 2008

Jason,

I thought the idea was that the big automakers wouldn't HAVE to sell ZEV's if they don't have them ready, but they could instead buy credits from ZEV producers like TESLA (money into TESLA's coffers). Another source of revenue for Tesla, which I have heard Tesla is not counting on in the their business plan, but would of course be a nice windfall. If I have this wrong, someone please set me straight.

Jason M. Hendler

8:23am | Mar 27, 2008

Steve,

I hadn't heard that there would be a credit market. I really hate those types of systems, and would rather create regulations that encourage real gains by all automakers towards the ultimate goal. I believe the E-REV's or REEV's are a feasible stepping stone towards ZEV's - BEV, fuel cell, etc.

Lee Dekker

8:56am | Mar 27, 2008

Those who feel government regulatory agencies should not be meddling in independent businesses have a valid point. Unfortunately, entrenched anti-electric vehicle business forces have asserted their "oil only" agenda by successfully manipulating government agencies for decades. Asking electric vehicle supporters not to participate in government regulation can only make sense if anti-electric vehicle elements also chose not to use their formidable powers in manipulating government.

Even the most libertarian view holds that governments place does involve protecting its citizens from foreign, domestic and ecological threats. Today's major energy suppliers and auto builders use government lobbying, media and unrestrained PR campaigns to hold on to power and stifle competition. When energy and auto companies succeed in controlling government to their ends they also succeed in depriving all citizens of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Mike Craven

9:14am | Mar 27, 2008

Mr. Drori,
Tesla should use some of their political capital with the Govenator. He is a customer isn't he? Just a thought.

Mike
--

Jason M. Hendler

9:18am | Mar 27, 2008

Again, until Tesla Motors actually starts producing BEV's, instead of slipping the schedule month after month after month after month, your insistance that TM alone would meet all CARB ZEV mandates is a crock:

Only one vehicle has been fielded, and until you book orders for 25,000 vehicles, you can't say that you cover any requirements, much less all of them.

When Telsa Motors finally meets a delivery schedule, then they can start demanding CARB up their industry quotas.

jay

11:27am | Mar 27, 2008

Jason,

We've all read your comments, but does it matter if Tesla produces that many cars?

1. I don't care whether Tesla produces enough ZEVs to meet the CARB requirement. The fact is the technology is there, and if a small, upstart company like Tesla can produce an all-electric vehicle there is no reason that GM cannot do it. As you probably know, the Tesla is why GM got its head out of the sand and started the Volt.

2. California has the chance to lead the rest of America to get us off (partially) our oil addiction. Why not just get it done for the sake of our economy, if nothing else, as oil is now over $100 per barrel.

Jason M. Hendler

1:11pm | Mar 27, 2008

Tesla Motors must demonstrate the FEASIBILITY of their ZEV, which means that they must produce it in large quantities at a PROFIT. Of course there is the technology to create one, but will they sell enough to make a profit? The Volt became feasible, because Tesla Motors showed that Li-Ion batteries achieve weight / cost / volume reductions for use in automobiles. GM's concept of replacing 80% of the battery pack with a generator and fuel tank allows them to attempt a price that far more buyers could afford. I suspect that both the Tesla Roadster and Chevy Volt will succeed in their markets.

As for getting off the oil addiction, I believe acceptance of EV's will more likely result through the sale / use of serial hybrids, than a wholesale switch to a BEV, which takes 4 hours to recharge. BEV's won't become widely accepted until they can be rapidly recharged.

jay

2:24pm | Mar 27, 2008

Jason,

Again, those comments have nothing to do with the idea that CARB should lower ZEV requirements. They have known about these requirements for years and Tesla produced a ZEV and they are a gnat on an elephant's behind compared to GM. So why didn't GM get off its rear-end since they have known about this for years? Instead, the stuck their head in the sand and relied upon their powerful lobby to once again sabatage any meaningful reform because they wanted to do the same old gas guzzling vehicles. That is GM's fault and no one else's fault. If GM had bothered to actually do something in the last several years since they have known about the ZEV requirements, then they would not be in the position they are now. I'm not big on government regulation but when you have oil companies and car companies kicking and screaming to fight from being brought into the 21st century, then sometimes you need government to push them along. This is one of those times.

Roger A. Simoneau

2:49pm | Mar 27, 2008

Off the "oil addiction".... won't happen any time soon. Vehicles are only one part of the market. The other part is in composits such as plastics, rubber, synthetic clothing etc. A reasonable list can be found at http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUPDF/$File/inside_cover.pdf

There seems to be some differences of opinion about just how much of the fossil fuel market goes to each sector. Some indications are as low as 6% - http://www.ccap.org/pdf/feedpub.pdf - others are as high as 70% (an article I read in National Geographic a couple years ago).

Depending on what the real ratio is, even if all vehicles turn from using any composit and not requiring the fossil fuels, the fossil fuel market will still be larger then local supplies can handle in North America.

jay

3:10pm | Mar 27, 2008

Roger,

I am aware that vehicles are only one part of the market as is most of us on this site.

Jason M. Hendler

5:04pm | Mar 27, 2008

jay,

Having worked at the GM Tech Center in the Alternative Fuels group, I am aware of all the political, legal, technical and financial considerations that GM has to balance to approach the alternative fuels vehicle market. The business model that Tesla followed doesn't fit GM's business model - GM isn't going to take pre-orders, then raise venture capital to finance the development of a new vehicle (perhaps they should). Only in Silicon Valley could such an endevour have been put together and succeed, using the latest in cutting edge and off-the-shelf components and systems. GM NEVER would have started with laptop batteries, as their only knowledge of those batteries was the fire related stories we've all heard. GM NEVER would have developed a vehicle for the high end of the marketplace.

Once Tesla Motors burst those conceptual barriers, GM was able to look at what Tesla did, and make two simple adjustments to that configuration, to fit their own business model - 1) start with a battery chemistry that NEVER bursts into flame, and 2) eliminate 80% of the batteries and add a generator, so that they can mass produce a vehicle for 1/3 the price of the Roadster. Ultimately, it will be this E-REV configuration that gains the greatest market penetration, and not a $100K BEV. CARB should give weighted credit to E-REV's to acknowledge their contribution, and full credit to the Tesla Roadster.

I will never understand people's desire to punish companies, when you won't even attempt to walk a mile in their shoes. Think about who they are and what they do, and understand what their capabilities truly are. In spite of GM's wealth and capabilities, the Tesla Roadster is a vehicle GM NEVER could or would have made, but it pointed the way to the type of vehicle that GM can and will build, and they should get credit for that.

Robert

8:54pm | Mar 27, 2008

I agree with some of the above bloggers. I think it may be time to pre-public release the WhiteStar info so they see the future of what Tesla can do for CA. Maybe this will help them think twice about making CA more polluted.

"The Air Resources Board today voted to triple the amount of zero emissions vehicles that staff had proposed for automakers to produce from 2012 through 2014, while directing staff to look at overhauling the program to account for climate change benefits." seems great, but read on, "Staff had proposed to require 2,500 pure zero emission vehicles, which the Board increased to 7,500. "

They are trying to make it seem as if they're done a great accomplishment. Yet all they've done is REDUCED the number from 25,000 down to 7,500 pure zev vehicles.

Thanks for trying Tesla though. You tried hard, guess the auto lobby was larger. We do appreciate the effort!

Jim Mapes

10:12pm | Mar 27, 2008

Yes Kevin that is true. We also cannot sell certain products to communist China, and many western products were banned for years in the Soviet Union. The People's Republic of California may follow suit, but that is why there are more than a few people that would wish for an acceleration of the San Andreas fault line to seperate the state from the rest of the nation, here in Colorado things are getting fairly Cali-fornicated via Boulder & Denver - its like cancer. The point is it is government mandates & interference in the marketplace, something that should not be happening here in the US. Such things belong elsewhere, well distanced by a large body of water.

Don't get me wrong, I support Tesla's efforts in production of their product - a product that I think will stand on its own apart from any regulatory influence to force such a decision on the marketplace. Many people made big money on the internet boom (many of whom are behind this effort). Its a matter of numbers that a similar boom will come with the EV. Of nearly all proposed Hybrids, Hydrogen etc driven cars in the works, they have in common electric traction motors for propulsion. This means they are really all driven by the same thing. The means are varied as to how to get it.

I wish I could find it, I think the link was in this blog around a year or so ago that a man had written a very astute article about how electricity is energy currency. You can derive it from many sources - you can use it to perform nearly any task as the source of energy to perform the work independent of the original source. It can be produced in one location and nearly instantly be used in another very far away. There is nothing else practical that has that versatility. Electricity is money in the economics of energy production and usage. Extrapolate that out a bit - damn near everything is going to run on electricity by the end of this century (speaking of that which currently does not - most vehicles and mobile machinery).

30 years ago in high school I had a vision of the future of transportation - electrified highways (national, state, county) & electric cars with battery power to travel a reasonable distance off grid (ie local streets). I still believe that is the ideal long term solution. It would take a huge investment, and several generations to complete. But such a thing would happen in steps and stages of which the production of practical battery powered vehicles is one step. All that is really needed is the means of safely inducting the power to the motor (& even the batteries while on powered roads, vehicles would be recharging while in motion on them). A caternary like trains use is possible, but cumbersome and has various issues of shorts, objects (ladders, trees, people) shorting the circuit to circumvent. I am fairly certain there is or while be discovered (or rediscovered if some of Nikola Tesla's work relates) a means to induce the power in a vehicle in the raodbed without suitable equipped objects being capable of closing the circuit. The discoverers, adopters and promoters of such a system stand to make a lot of money in the long term if they are savvy enough. It does also open the door to computer controlled traffic, which while from a freedom standpoint I don't care for, but from the safety & efficiency standpoint would go in hand with it (ie, get in, state or type destination and the car with its sensors [radar, sonar, IR] coupled with the traffic control system would get you there at speeds most people are not capable of driving.

However, I don't think any government needs to force this to happen via mandates (they would however need to set a standard so that you could travel about without damaging your vehicles on differing grids). It will happen, because people want to get around, and very few have any desire to step backward in our capabilities of doing so. Transportation demands will only increase as time goes forward and population rises.

Kevin Harney

5:27am | Mar 28, 2008

So did we get to the hearing yesterday or is it going to be today ?!?!

Jason M. Hendler

5:49am | Mar 28, 2008

CORRECTION:

CARB has reduced the ZEV mandate from 25,000 to 7,500, but added a 60,000 hybrid requirement:

admin: I hope you delete the other post, so as to not create confusion.

Kevin Harney

6:31am | Mar 28, 2008

So Jason ... does that mean that they must create 7500 ZEVs AND 60,000 Hybrids and/or how do the hybrids translate into ZEVs. Is it 2 hybrids = 1 ZEV or is it based on emissions output or what ?

Kevin Harney

7:13am | Mar 28, 2008

CARB said this :

Staff had proposed to require 2,500 pure zero emission vehicles, which the Board increased to 7,500. Automakers can produce fewer ZEVs, 5,357, if they are long-range fuel cell vehicles or they can opt to satisfy the requirement by manufacturing 12,500 battery electric vehicles with a range of 100 miles.

The Board maintained a second component of the vehicle emissions reduction program that allows the automakers flexibility in their alternative fuel programs by requiring an additional 66,000 plug-in hybrids during that same period. If the automakers produce 25,000 ZEVs, there are no remaining plug-in hybrid requirements.

Does that mean that Automakers would be required to produce MORE vehicles if they were BEV (12,500) than if they were fuel cells (5,357)

Does that mean that if they are producing long range BEVs that they only need to produce 7,500 ? and 100 mile range they need to produce 12,500 ?

Looks like they must produce BOTH if they do not meet the ZEV alone. So if they do not produce 7500 ZEVs then they must produce an ADDITIONAL 66,000 hybrids.

Am I reading correctly ? This is VERY poorly worded.

Lee Dekker

7:29am | Mar 28, 2008

Hybrids are great. What many fail to understand is that all hybrids sold today obtain 100% of their energy from gasoline/diesel.

No hybrid sold today is able to make use of even one milliamp of domestically produced electricity. Why is that?

What is this idea that 'State intervention = Communism? '
Yes, a free market is the best system to allocate resources- given perfect distribution of information and product. In this case however, the with-holding of new technology (to the extent that buyers are deceived that there is no alternative) constitute massive market imperfections which make an absolute mockery of laissez faire. I m no economist, but as I understand it government intervention is the only way to iron out these wrinkles.

Roger A. Simoneau

8:27am | Mar 28, 2008

Hey Jason M;

Looking into GM's history, when the business got it's start, it acquired financing:

"In 1902, Durant drove both steam- and gasoline-powered cars, but was unimpressed and concluded that motor vehicles would not challenge his firm's prosperity. Two years later, he drove a car built by Flint-resident David Buick and quickly recognized that his future was in the automobile business, not the carriage business.

Durant worked with Buick to develop a prosperous Buick Car company. In 1908, he approached J. P. Morgan for financing to create a huge International Motors Company. Durant's sought a loan to purchase the small but growing Ford Motor Company. A timid Morgan was willing to provide only limited financing, so Durant changed the name to General Motors. By 1909, Durant secured enough financing and had sufficient financial imagination to acquire Buick, Cadillac, Oldsmobile and Oakland: the make now known as Pontiac. A year later, Durant's General Motors owned 11 auto makers and 19 suppliers. The firm, however, lost money and so the investors ousted the high rolling Will Durant."

It's safe to say that financing can occur in many ways:
a) Loan
b) Private investment
c) IPO
d) Sell the product idea without selling a "piece of the pie" - effectively, selling the product to those willing to purchase it prior to it's existance

GM originally followed what can be viewed as the "standard business model".
1) Acquire Capital
2) Produce Product
3) Sell Product for profit

I'll agree with you that GM does not seem to have acquired financing through method D. However, I'll have to disagree with you regards the business model that Tesla is following is different from what GM followed. GM acquired financing through methods A and B and ultimately C. Tesla has so far used A and B and D.

Tesla is still following the steps of 1 through 3 however. They acquired capital, they RnD'd and produced a product. Now they're attempting to sell it for a profit so the business can grow. One of the three methods they used to acquire Capital was different from what GM used to acquire capital. Two of those methods of acquiring capital are the same.

As for the business model as a whole, that's pretty much standard going back in history as far as one can research businesses.

From a philosophical perspective, D is only a little different from A, B or C. In each of A and B, and sometimes C, the idea is sold to someone willing to take the chance to invest. The chance is that the product may not be marketable. Many investors throughout time have invested in businesses that ultimately failed. Where a "revolutionary product" has been in play, the investors always took the risk of investing in a product that may not eventually exist.

Philosophically, whether a Bank or private investor gives a loan/investment to an inventor before a product is RnD'd or Tesla sells the car before it's RnD'd is little difference in the end. The main difference is that if the investment pays out, the investor stands to profit the most, the loan next followed by the product recipient.

Roger

Kevin Harney

9:33am | Mar 28, 2008

Why would the CARB try and distinguish between different types of ZEVs????????? What do they care what the type is ??? It should not matter as long as they are ZEV. albeit electric or fuel cell or what ever comes along after.

E

9:47am | Mar 28, 2008

I do think that this alteration of the ZEV Mandate is bad but am confused why it is important to Tesla. Tesla you do not need a mandate to build cars. Actually I dont understand this at all. If you are the sole builder of a ZEV then you have no competition and could corner the market early. I see a minimum number of vehicles that must be ZEV but no stated maximum.

Actually you could look at this as an opportunity to get your product out there and create a following before the other large automakers wake up. What I suggest you do is find some extreme money backing and mass produce a non-roadster practical vehicle that the regular person can afford. Your $100K pricetag ensures you are a niche item that is bound to do OK in the future but never become a giant.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

chino

10:02am | Mar 28, 2008

Does someone have a link to a transcript (video would be best) of the testimony and decision-making session? Does this even exist?

Kevin Harney

10:03am | Mar 28, 2008

CARB said this :

"The Air Resources Board today voted to triple the amount of zero emissions vehicles that staff had proposed for automakers to produce from 2012 through 2014,..."

Does that mean 7500 over a 3 year period meaning 2500/year or does that mean 7500/yr for 3 years meaning 22,500?

Darin Ladd

10:49am | Mar 28, 2008

Merz--

There are two sides to the argument about government and markets. The opposing viewpoint to the one you presented is that government can be used as a tool to serve entrenched interests (such as existing firms with inferiior products) to increase market barriers to entry (such as dispersal of information on products). So, the question then becomes, should we use additional government regulation to reduce the effect of previous government regulation, or should we work to undo the initial regulation (or do nothing)?

Also, there is considerable disagreement over the oft-cited assumption that a laissez-faire market means "perfect distribution of information/products." Shumpeter challenged this assumption in the 1930s. His model assumed that market information was not perfectly distributed, leading to market-specific pricing strategies (pretty close to reality if you ask me). Another argument of his, related to this one, is that a free market leads to a certain amount of "creative destruction" as old, entrenched ideas are replaced with new, better ones. In this context, one might assume that the longer entrenched interests artificially suppress better ideas, the larger the fallout will be when those ideas finally reach a "critical mass." Practically, it means that some of the ICE manufacturers might go out of business when EVs really take off. This destruction (of existing ICE manufacturers that could not adapt) actually serves the interests of EV manufacturers. . . .

So, for those who are concerned with EVs becoming the dominant design, one might argue the most effective way to achieve this is to buy one yourself and drive it as often as possible. Consider the license plate suggested by a previous poster: "BYEOPEC." For every EV vehicle purchased and driven, thousands of people who see it on the road become aware of EVs, overcoming the lack of information in the market and speeding acceptance of the new design. If you can't afford one, buy a poster or T-shirt (and wear it). Start a fan club. Write your favorite celebrity and suggest that he/she buy an EV. All these ideas are, I would argue, superior to the idea that the government signing a policy into effect will lead to more EVs on the road.

TEG

2:46pm | Mar 28, 2008

# E wrote on March 28th, 2008 at 10:47 am
## I do think that this alteration of the ZEV Mandate is bad but am confused why it is important to Tesla.
## Tesla you do not need a mandate to build cars.

There was/is expected to be a "barter system" for ZEV credits.
If a big auto manufacturer wanted to sell gas cars in California they could satisfy their requirement for ZEVs by buying credits from Tesla.
This would allow Tesla to make some additional money off of cars they already sold.
Some other companies (e.g.: Phoenix) seemed to have factored in expected number of marketable ZEV credits and a price for them into their business plan / pricing model.
Tesla has said they weren't counting on the credits to be viable, but you can't blame them for chasing the gravy.

There are a few problems with the idea of putting ZEV credits in your business model:
#1: CARB could change the mandate and wipe out the program (they just watered down / dilluted it again).
#2: Big auto could build an sell their own ZEVs instead of buying your credits.
#3: Other ZEV startups could start competing for a limited pool of interest in ZEV credits.

Tayven

3:13pm | Mar 28, 2008

I sent CARB an email as well. I love this car! Its exactly what I have been saying for so long and you have made it into one beautiful package! Being 'green' isn't about sacrificing those extras that make a car nice, you can do it with style, luxury and with loads of power!
Great work guys I hope this car is very successful your all doing a great job! Hopefully Ill beable to drive a Teslar one day in Australia!

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to you with my concerns about the ZEV mandate. This mandate forces big auto to make cars which are great for the economy, environment and the consumer yet CARB wants to allow them extra 'Breathing Room' to make these cars? Big Auto companies already have the technology to do this if you have ever followed the GM EV1 which was a great electric car for example. Teslar Motors a private car company is now is now PRODUCING an electric sports roadster! It goes 200miles per charge and only costs 2cents per mile to drive, 0 - 60 miles per hour in 4.5 seconds! This is a very feasible car and if a small car company startup can do this big auto can as well!
Please force big auto to make Electric Vehicles and make this mandate stronger not weaker! The eyes of America and the world are watching your decision and it will set a bench mark world wide!
The Electric Vehicle is the transport of the future please make it available today!

Regards
Tayven

Jason M. Hendler

3:14pm | Mar 28, 2008

Roger,

LOL - one has to go back a hundred years to find a time when GM used external financing to place bets on future production. GM was so different in the 70's and 80's (when I was there) from how it was in the early 1900's - hobbled by unions and helpless to defend itself from low cost / high quality cars from Japan. Although GM is nowhere as cutting edge as Tesla Motors or Fisker Automotive, GM's recent product developments, restructurings and new union contracts have me floored - I would never imagine that GM could be that nimble. I am also blown away by the excellent coordination between the federal government and the automakers to generate the 2007 CAFE standards, and the rational compromise between CARB and the automakers to spread the reduced emissions burden over both hybrids and ZEV's, and not just ZEV's, giving automakers some credit for products they are currently producing, or are about to produce.

I do suspect that the major automakers will eventually buy up companies like Tesla, Fisker, etc., and add their nameplates to their own. It would be interesting to see a major automaker create a new nameplate, which raises and uses venture capital to create ZEV's, as a separate entity. I've worked in companies that did this - leveraging existiing infrastructure, while developing a business unit that operated separately.

Also see the staff proposal which shows how the credit system works. The Tesla Roadster gets the maximum 5 credits per vehicle. A GM Volt with a 50 mile range would get 2 credits. With a 40 mile range would get a bit less than two. (See page 19) http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2008/08-3-5pres.pdf

Hope this helps.

nathan

12:07pm | Mar 29, 2008

****************

So---CARB just can't find any manufacturers for Electric Cars??????????

Bull HALIBUT !!!

Ok----Elon:

Can the NM Tesla Plant---make the leap to the Blue Star a little earlier??

At the 2008 New York International Auto Show, Mitsubishi revealed it is looking to the U.S. market as a possible fit for the company’s tiny 4-passenger car, the i. And if there’s a place for the diminutive car on U.S. roads, then perhaps there might also be a market for an electric version.

Already sold in Japan where it has gained considerable popularity, the i-car is about 10 inches shorter than a MINI Cooper but makes excellent use of available space. Four adult passengers fit easily in the i-car, while still allowing for a bit of cargo — although only a grocery bag or two. Headroom is quite plentiful due to the i-car’s shape.

The shape is even possible in this small of a package because the engine sits below the floor and just forward of the rear axle. This allowed designers to give the rear-wheel-drive i-car a larger passenger compartment while putting the wheels at the corners.

The other advantage to this rear-mid engine layout: converting to an electric version of the i-car does not require any major structural changes. So Mitsubishi replaced the gasoline-powered engine with an electric motor powered by lithium-ion batteries stored under the floor. This new version of the i-car is called the i-MIEV (Mitsubishi Innovative Electric Vehicle).

An even more interesting advantage when converting the i-car into the i-MIEV: With the batteries in the floor, the center of gravity is lowered so much the electric version actually handles better than its gas-powered sibling.

Mitsubishi plans to put the i-MIEV on sale in Japan late next year, but to get an early indication of the viability of this car in America, the company brought a few cars to the New York show. MSN Autos' editors got the chance to take this little car for a spin around Manhattan and found the car would probably feel right at home zipping and lunging between the taxicabs of the Big Apple.

On the Road

The i-MIEV is unnervingly quiet, even for an electric car. However, it operates just like any other car: Turn the key, shift into Drive, and away it goes.

Because electric cars provide peak torque almost immediately, the i-MIEV is quick. During our test drive we had no problem keeping up with New York traffic, since the i-MIEV can accelerate from a standstill faster than most larger cars.

The i does feel quite small going wheel-to-wheel with mammoth delivery trucks, SUVs and taxis, but being small has definite advantages in the city. During our drive we rolled up to a taxi that had broken down in the middle of the street. A larger car would have had to turn around, but at less than five feet wide the i-MIEV easily maneuvered around the disabled cab.

Mitsubishi claims the range of the current lithium-ion batteries to be around 80 miles. Charge time varies depending on the power source. To fully charge the i-MIEV with a standard 110 outlet takes about 14 hours. Hooking up to a 220 volt power source — common in most houses for plugging in the clothes dryer — cuts the time to seven hours. Quick chargers are currently being developed that could cut the time to 30 minutes.

Mitsubishi will be leaving a few of these electric i-MIEVs in the U.S. for fleet testing with a utility company, and will continue to assess the market for small cars as well as electric cars."

# E wrote on March 28th, 2008 at 10:47 am
#
# I do think that this alteration of the ZEV Mandate is bad but am confused why it is important to Tesla. Tesla you do not need a mandate to build cars. Actually I dont understand this at all. If you are the sole builder of a ZEV then you have no competition and could corner the market early. I see a minimum number of vehicles that must be ZEV but no stated maximum.
#
# Actually you could look at this as an opportunity to get your product out there and create a following before the other large automakers wake up. What I suggest you do is find some extreme money backing and mass produce a non-roadster practical vehicle that the regular person can afford. Your $100K pricetag ensures you are a niche item that is bound to do OK in the future but never become a giant.
#
# Correct me if I am mistaken.

As I see it, Tesla has two ulterior motives:

1) Already discussed, was the ZEV credit market means of producing extra capital for higher profits and more rapid expansion.

2) (If you believe them) The company was not originally conceived as a way to make a lot of money; the people involved already have more than enough for their lifetime. The goal was to see how quickly they could make the country independent of foreign oil, and decrease transportation pollution without sacrificing the now expected liberties of car ownership.

In more than one interview it's been said that all profits from this venture get poured back into the R&D of better cheaper vehicles. Of course, we won't know how much the top brass earn until the company goes public, but I'd be willing to make a small bet that it's below the average executive pay. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here)

The bottom line is that Tesla can't make all the cars needed to invert our infrastructure over night, or even in a decade. People will buy the cars Tesla makes as fast as they can make them. What's the environmental, geopolitical, or even financial incentive to have a waiting list of tens of thousands of people? By driving competition in any and all ways possible, Tesla stands to gain far more than by trying to keep the market to themselves. One of the most important aspects, is that it will accelerate battery and capacitor technology improvements, which brings the cost down and increases range, shelf life, and performance while reducing weight and recharge times.

If someone comes out with a more efficient, sexier, longer range, faster charging, cheaper, more mass-produced car than Tesla can make because they pushed for such competition, then Tesla *might* fold, but they will have achieved their primary objective, which is to get us off oil faster.

Kevin Harney

1:39pm | Mar 29, 2008

NZDavid,

I believe that the Roadster will get 4 credits per car. Four credits is 100+ miles and fast refueling OR 200+ miles and no fast refueling. Roadster is the latter. 5 credits is 200+ miles and fast refueling. The roadster is not that. Fast refueling is defined as 0.95 miles / minute. Which I do not believe the Roadster can do but please correct me if I am wrong TM.

I believe that the Tesla Roadster qualifies for ZEV TypeII, which is 3 credits per vehicle. Phoenix Motor Car vehicles qualify for ZEV TypeIII and 5 credits because they have the capability of a 10 minute charge.

I would like to see a future blog addressing polution in the production of electricity. It turns out that Tesla does not qualify in the Automotive XPrize race because of their formula that includes CO2 and emissions from the (primarily coal) electricity production. I think this is an unfair penalty for electric vehicle entrants, and am curious about how XPrize calculates the polution produced by electric suppliers. Is the electric source really that bad? If it is then the whole rational of producing EVs only makes sense if the electricity producers change over to non-poluting methods. There has been talk for many years of "clean coal" but so far as I know, no coal power plants have been significantly cleaned up. When I went to the http://www.americaspower.org/ web site, even though they claim great improvements in harmful polutants (70% better tha what?), they are asking the government to research solutions for CO2 sequestering, and make no suggestion that they are trying to solve this problem themselves.

Oh, it looks like I was wrong. Only Fuel Cell vehicles qualify for 4 and 5 credits, so Phoenix's fast charge time does not earn extra credits.

Jason M. Hendler

3:19pm | Mar 29, 2008

Brian H,

Wouldn't it be great if Tesla bought Chrysler out of receivership, just to grab the Jeep product line, and make those EV's and REEV's. Imagine how those vehicles could climb terrain. They might want the Dodge nameplate, for their RAM pickups and muscle cars.

Kevin Harney

6:32pm | Mar 29, 2008

Roy,

No a BEV can get 4 credits if it has a range over 200 miles. And that is the Roadster. Pheonix may be a type 1.5 or 2 or 3 depending on the range. What is the stated range ? And to be fast charging they have to charge at the rate of 0.95 miles per minute so range plays a factor in the fast charging thing as well. IF it can charge in 10 minutes but can not go 95 miles off that charge it is not a fast charging vehicle.

Kevin Harney

7:16pm | Mar 29, 2008

Roy,

Type 1, 50-74 miles per charge 2 credits

Type 1.5, 75-99 miles per charge 2.5 credits

Type 2, 100+ miles per charge 3 credits

Type 3, 100+ miles and fast refueling or 200+ miles an no fast refueling 4 credits

Thanks Kevin. http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com range is over 110 miles. At 0.95 miles / minute then the Roadster would classify as fast charge if it can be charged in 3 hours and 25 minutes, I think it takes 4.5 hours. Doesn't seem very fast to me. Are you sure that's not 9.5 miles/minute?

BTW the CARB proposal states that there is already 4400 BEVs in California (and 26000 NEVs and 160 fuel cell). Are they counting the EV1s Fords and Toyotas built in 1999-2003? I didn't think there was any where near that many. Tesla may be the only manufacturer today but it will take several years to equal the quantity already manufactured by others. Phoenix says they will start delivering their pre-sold 500 vehicles this summer, so Tesla's claim to being the only manufacturer will be short lived. All this is good, the more the better :)

NZDavid

11:17pm | Mar 29, 2008

Kevin, At 240 Volt and 70amps charging in 3.5 hours (210 minutes), with a 225 mile range, I would have thought the Tesla Roadster just achieves the .95 miles per minute charge rate. Or am I missing something?

While I am here, is the 50-75 miles per charge calculated at the beginning of the battery cycle or at the end? The GM Volt is aiming to have a 40 mile range at the END of the battery cycle, so if it could achieve the 50 mile range at the beginning, it might get it's 2 point credit.

Thomas J.

5:22am | Mar 30, 2008

I predict that Tesla will come out with a fast charger that will allow them qualify as a type 4. It won't be available for home use, but will be installed commercially. I believe the Roadster is already capable, but the downside is reduced battery lifetime. That's an acceptable tradeoff for the occasional long trip.

Jason M. Hendler

7:21am | Mar 30, 2008

Kevin,

Do you know what vehicles currently on the roads (aside from the one and only Tesla) would earn any of the credits listed? Do you know what vehicles have been announced that would earn any of the credits listed?

I don't believe the Chevy Volt even meets the Type 1 criteria, unless they add another 10 miles worth of range through either more batteries or less discharge reserves.

Jason M. Hendler

8:07am | Mar 30, 2008

Thomas J.,

Tesla would have to change to a non-standard Li-Ion battery chemistry, like those that GM and others use, for a rapid recharge, unless they are confident that their cooling system could handle the extra heat. I sure wouldn't be sitting in the vehicle while is rapidly recharged.

Kevin Harney

10:54am | Mar 30, 2008

Roy,

I am sure that the 4400 is inclusive of ALL 13 of the CARB regulated states not just CA. Includes demos and prototypes as well. plus a very few RAV 4's , eBoxes etc.

I will double check on the Fast refueling to be sure ...

NZDavid,

The range is based on a full charge. So if the Volt can do 50+ miles on electric only it will get 2 credits.

Jason M.,

Credits are issued at the time it is put in service. So the cars already on the road have already earned their credits and they earned them at the old rates. This is why so many of the LVM's have credits in the "bank" already.

Anon A. Mus

10:57am | Mar 30, 2008

My previous post did not completely post. The CARB states: Fast Refueling Capability: ZEV Range: >= 100 miles: “Must be capable of replacing 95 percent maximum rated energy capacity in 10 minutes". This indicates a charge rate of at least 95%x(100miles)/(10minutes) = 9.5miles/minute, not the 0.95miles/minute that Kevin Harney has stated several times in previous posts. The roadster is capable of 221 EPA cycle combined miles and charges in as little as 3.5hours. This would indicate a charge rate of around (221miles)/(3.5hours) = 221miles/210minutes ~ 1.05miles/minute.

For once CARB is correct. They have been on the wrong side of the thermodynamic argument for the past two decades. They are the twits who mandated MTBE. Let the market decide how many electric (note not ZEV) vehicles get sold. It is a misnomer to term an EV a ZEV. The electricity grid in the USA is highly dependant on coal fired generation and the is the opposite of ZEV. We won't have a purely renewable electric grid so let's not BS ourselves about ZEV. Notwithstanding this the battery car has come a long way and there will be some of them on the road. No doubt the Tesla is an engineering marvel only problem is the cost. If I had Jay Leno's bucks I would buy two Teslas.

Kevin Harney

11:11am | Mar 30, 2008

I misread the regulations put out by CARB.

Fast refueling is in fact this:

95 miles UDDS (Urban Dynometer Driving Schedule) in 10 minutes.

Therefore, since the range of a type 3 vehicle is 100+ miles it is a rate of 9.5 miles per minute. So Roy was coerrect. And my math skills need something to be desired LOL :)

Kevin Harney

11:15am | Mar 30, 2008

So the Roadster would need to completely recharge in 23 minutes and the Pheonix vehicles would need to completely recharge in 10 minutes.

Tesla Motors should not concern itself greatly with C.A.R.B.. Your venture is succeeding, and will succeed on its own merits, and doesn't need any hot-housing or life-support from the government. The roadster will succeed because it is the right vehicle at the right time. It will succeed because it is poised at the confluence of technologies that will render the gasoline automobile a curious relic.

I hope to live to see a time when gasoline cars are a rarity seen mostly in museums. Or where the odd contraptions putter their way to enthusiast car shows; as unlikely a sighting on the open road as a Model T.

This will happen, not because of government mandate, but because of the inherent advantages. One day people will shake their heads in wonder that the world lived with something as difficult as gasoline-powered vehicles.

Gas cars have come a long way from what they once were, thanks go a century of concerted effort and trillions of dollars in research and development. But they can't progress much further. Once a reasonable EV hits the market, there will be a heavily weighted tipping point. The money will flow to EVs. As advanced as the Tesla Roadster is, keep in mind that it really is the Model T of what is to come. Thanks for getting us there, and stay on your toes!

Ladson Isaac

9:36am | Mar 31, 2008

Do you remember the last zev requirement was scraped by Governor Wilson because of Big Auto and Big Oil pressure, favors, campaign funding,etc?
Is this a repeat performance from Arnold? I hope not! In the Wilson case, he simply replaced the chairman of the CARB and had the new guy do Big Auto's bidding. Let's watch CARB and see if it is also weakened this time around. I'm sure Tesla realizes that the oil and auto industry is all about who controls the market and knows that Washington lobbying groups are the coordinators for these industries, It's the AAM for the auto makers and the API for the oil companies.

I would like to see Tesla become a force in the market perhaps by going with an IPO as soon as possible. It would be good to see someone challenge the AAM's control of the market and to move to a truly open marketplace instead of putting up with the slow progress created by the AAM to protect their client's profits and interest. The AAM and API are special interest operating in their finest fashion to the detriment of our middle-class. There I feel better!

Hunter

10:30am | Mar 31, 2008

Lindsay Leveen-

Well, I guess it was only a matter of time before someone stepped on the "let the market decide" landmine. I would have thought it would be Jason, but for unclear reasons he seems to be towing a relatively moderate line on this regulatory question. For what it's worth, I am close to agreeing with him: the hybrids should be worth something...the automakers are building them and they're better than straight ICE cars. I dare say we disagree on how much they should be worth, and whether CARB should still force some pure BEVs to be produced, but that's a rather small gulf, at least as far as our disagreements usually go.

In any event, back to "let the market decide." You evidently ignore the fact that the market in its current state has massive and harmful externalities. In this country there is no carbon tax or carbon trading system; you get to produce (and sell) cars and other polluting equipment for whatever it costs to manufacture them (plus profit), while we all pay the economic costs of their pollution (even if we drive a BEV, or ride a bike). So there is a "hidden cost" here for which the market does not account, and which is much lower for BEVs. This all amounts to saying that "the market" should be expected to make a rather poor decision here. Virtually all modern economic theory accepts the value of allowing government to make regulations that correct externalities. This is one such case; government artificially lowering the cost of electric cars and increasing that of ICE cars has the potential to fix the market's inaccuracy. A carbon tax would be better, but it doesn't look likely in the current political climate.

It is worth noting that government regulation has the potential to make markets more efficient and smoother, and to reduce the harmful actions of large entities that have the ability to manipulate those markets. Not to mention that even when regulation comes with economic costs (as it often does) this must be weighed against social benefits. Would you who rail against any and all regulation really like to have our childrens' blood-lead levels back to where they were before the clean air act? Was the burden on corporations just too much? Sheesh.

Kevin Harney

10:35am | Mar 31, 2008

Ladson,

Too late .... It is already a repeat of the Wilson era ...

Kevin Harney

11:39am | Mar 31, 2008

Nubo,

It is not quite that simple. Tesla stands to make some money from selling the credits they are fighting to keep in place. So it is a money thing as well as a "do the right thing" issue.

James Anderson Merritt

11:41am | Mar 31, 2008

# Jason M. Hendler wrote on March 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

# Wouldn’t it be great if Tesla bought Chrysler out of receivership ...
# They might want the Dodge nameplate, for their RAM pickups and muscle cars.

The New Dodge CHARGER! 100% BEV and faster and more muscular than any previous car with that name! Ohhhhhh yeah!

Then there's the Dodge Neon: Bluestar might be the new design center for this one.

For the record: I also like the idea of a Tesla-powered GM/Saturn Ion, or Buick Electra. Maybe Tesla need not acquire GM, but simply help 'em out with some cash by purchasing those two names. :-)

Nubo

5:17pm | Mar 31, 2008

Kevin, it's always a money thing. Wich is one reason not to factor in any governent largesse to a business plan. It's too fickle. If this is to be a world-changing technology then it doesn't need any governmental help. If, in fact, it is world-changing then there isn't anything actually that can be done to STOP it. As much as we might want to hope that governent can accurately correct for externalities here, the reality is that usually the government lags behind real change and jumps on the bandwagon when the issue is already largely decided. I'd be happy to see Tesla Motors not only stop campaigning for goverment credits, but to publicy announce that it will refuse them. The issue is already decided folks. Gasoline ICE cars will be a rarity in one generation, two at the most.

Shawn Tabankin

6:58pm | Mar 31, 2008

I guess I'm a little late... I would've recomended parking a Tesla Roadster outside the CARB on the day of the vote and held a press conference.

I fear an IPO, once Tesla is public it can be bought and suppressed by anyone. GM spend a Billion dollars on the EV1 and then scrapped them as soon as they won their court case against CARB. Exxon bought Ovinshki's NMHi pattents and then used them to force Toyota to stop selling Rave Electrics! Please, Tesla, don't be in a hurry to go public.

Timothy W.

9:25pm | Mar 31, 2008

# Anon A. Mus wrote on March 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am

# The CARB states: Fast Refueling Capability: ZEV Range: >= 100 miles: “Must be capable of replacing 95 percent maximum rated energy capacity in 10 minutes”. This indicates a charge rate of at least 95%x(100miles)/(10minutes) = 9.5miles/minute, not the 0.95miles/minute that Kevin Harney has stated several times in previous posts.

OK, so I'll repost the question that I asked the moderator to cancel for me before (it sounded stupid at the time with the other math and I couldn't be arsed to read the whole mandate myself)

Any bets on if recharge time is directly related to current prototype hydrogen filling station capabilities? Anyone have the numbers on how long it takes to refuel a fool-cell for a given range?

Kevin Harney

5:16am | Apr 1, 2008

Nubo,

TM has stated many times both in these blogs and publicly that these credits are in fact not part of their business plan. But you certainly can not blame them for asking for the gravy when it is sitting on the table. I agree with you that these cars are the way of the future and are probably here to stay in some form or another. But the larger point is that these credits are a way to promote the "better good" for the country and the world and we should do all we can to promote the better good in a society that needs it so badly.

Jay

6:58am | Apr 1, 2008

IMO, Big Carbon (oil company name inserted here) knows the future right now. The lithium ion battery field is ripe for picking. Big Carbon has enough cash to easily buy any battery patents out there. For smaller enterprises it would be like winning the lottery. Then spin shelving the patent because the technology is "still under development". Consumer pain is market opportunity.

TEG

7:47am | Apr 1, 2008

# Shawn Tabankin wrote on March 31st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
## I guess I’m a little late… I would’ve recommended parking a Tesla Roadster outside the CARB on the day of the vote and held a press conference.

# # Shawn Tabankin wrote on March 31st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
# # # I guess I’m a little late… I would’ve recommended parking
# # # a Tesla Roadster outside the CARB on the day of the vote and held a press conference.

Diarmuid was right on the money in all his talking points. Yet CARB went more in the direction of "staff's proposal" than his.

On the one hand, I don't think CARB should exist. I think that CARB is the type of agency which takes unearned credit, when things get better more or less on their own, or by accident; and which shifts blame to other actors at all other times. They're happy to jump in front of the established parade and seem to lead it. But when asked to acknowledge reality, as Diarmuid did in the clip, they turn into the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil monkeys on our backs.

On the other hand, if they ARE going to exist, then to lessen standards when reality shows those standards to be realistic enough is to abdicate their official duty. In which case, some heads need to roll or the entire agency needs to be disbanded, due to impotence and irrelevance.

The Libertarians don't need CARB, because it gets in the way of free-market enterprise and makes whatever situation it touches worse through ham-fisted intervention. The Progressives don't need CARB, because it knowingly, obstinately fails to satisfy its own charter. It seems to me that the only people who need CARB are the big -auto and big-oil interests, who can lobby to stifle competition and use a government agency as their heat-shield.

I hope that Tesla is wildly successful in the next several years, so that Diarmuid can go back to Sacramento in 2011 or so and testify before officials, spectators, and media cameras and microphones, that Tesla ALONE met the standards that CARB had until this week, thus demonstrating that the decision just taken was not only based on an erroneous premise, but an egregiously erroneous one. The emperor persists in parading down the street without clothing. That CARB deliberately ignored ample warning of this error should be grounds for some big changes. So Go Tesla. Your efforts may have more beneficial effects than just taking ICE cars off the road. You might be instrumental in helping to clean up this State's dysfunctional political establishment.

TEG

1:24pm | Apr 1, 2008

# James wrote:
## I hope that Tesla is wildly successful in the next several years, so that Diarmuid can go back to Sacramento in 2011 or so and testify before officials, spectators, and media cameras and microphones, that Tesla ALONE met the standards that CARB had until this week,

Yeah, the ZE'EV mandate will outdo the ZEV mandate!

Nathan

3:26pm | Apr 1, 2008

Carbs---or No Carbs?

It is true---***IF**** Tesla and Mitsubishi and Toyota start producting PEV and EV's and selling them in high volume 10000+ cars a year---then CARB is out of the picture.

BUUUUUTTTT---the problem is that no one is producting EV's. Tesla "may" produce 100 in 2008.

But that is if all the bugs get worked out and the manufacturing process gets going and ramped up. ***Hey Tesla**** this is not a critique--just a view of what is going on. I'm a supporter and want to see you build/deliver 1000 cars in 2008, but I realize that you've had some severe bumps along the highway.

Kevin Harney

6:08pm | Apr 1, 2008

So what is the status on P2 ?!?!?!?!?

Ladson Isaac

9:30pm | Apr 1, 2008

A few observations:

Who does the chairperson for CARB serve under? The answer: The Governor and she carries out his instructions...so when you criticize CARB you should understand that the governor can intervene at any time he wants; just as Governor Wilson did when he removed the chairperson at CARB and sabotaged the ZEV requirements.

The charge that members of CARB also serve on another board to promote hydrogen as announced on Youtube ( see the jump above) should not go unnoticed by the press and should be published for all to read; if this is true, again the Governor should intervene and ask them to step down.

Don't you feel the heavy hand of Big Oil's money pressing on the entire automobile industry and running the politicians in Washington, D.C. and Sacramento? Well! I do and it's evident in how slowly we are progressing in bringing electric cars to market. And, do not forget that the following auto companies are fully coordinated by their lobbying organization, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM): BMW Group, Chrysler, LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen of America, Inc. Don't expect electric cars to come to market in any sufficient numbers any time soon from these car companies. IMO, They are only motivated by profits and control of the market. Don't you think Toyota, with their tremendous resources, could build a BEV and bring it to market right now if their chairman ordered them to do it?

Jason M. Hendler

5:15am | Apr 2, 2008

James Anderson Merritt said: "I hope that Tesla is wildly successful in the next several years, so that Diarmuid can go back to Sacramento in 2011 or so and testify before officials, spectators, and media cameras and microphones, that Tesla ALONE met the standards that CARB had until this week, thus demonstrating that the decision just taken was not only based on an erroneous premise, but an egregiously erroneous one."

You are counting your chickens before they are hatched. I agree with Nathan that Tesla will probably only ship 100 cars in 2008, because they have swallowed the BS religion of an over-orchestrated manufacturing launch, taught to them by people who ONLY want to delay Tesla from achieving production. It allows them to act smart, while looking dumb.

James Anderson Merritt

2:12pm | Apr 2, 2008

# Jason M. Hendler wrote on April 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 am

## James Anderson Merritt said: “I hope that Tesla is wildly successful in the next several years,
## so that Diarmuid can go back to Sacramento in 2011 or so and testify before officials,
## spectators, and media cameras and microphones, that Tesla ALONE met the standards that
## CARB had until this week, thus demonstrating that the decision just taken was not only based on
## an erroneous premise, but an egregiously erroneous one.”

# You are counting your chickens before they are hatched. I agree with Nathan that
# Tesla will probably only ship 100 cars in 2008...

So you are talking about 2008 and I am expressing a hope about and a goal for 2011. These are not mutually exclusive and I am not counting any chickens yet. On the other hand, you can hatch a LOT of chickens in three years. Take it from someone who spent his high school years working hard on a poultry ranch before getting involved with high tech. ;-)

Kevin Harney

6:15am | Apr 3, 2008

YAWN - We need a new blog now ! LOL :)

Jacob

7:11am | Apr 3, 2008

Ladson Isaac, exactly!
If a small company like Tesla can do it, then it PROVES that Big Auto has been holding up advances to do Big Oil's bidding. And if the politicians will not push this forward, then they are in their pockets as well. It is a sad state of affairs when the technology is now proven, but the powers that be, would rather destroy the planet for profit. Congrats to them on their great accomplishment. By the way, where the hell is the media in all of this??????? Is this NOT a big story????
I do not hear one peep out of any of the presidential candidates either!!! I have seen an ad by Obama's campaign about energy/oil/gas,etc. that essentially says nothing. That is it. Change??? All words, no action.

david moxness

9:08am | Apr 3, 2008

Here is a company that is carving out their own niche in the EV world ( maybe a future joint venture for Tesla?)http://www.smithselectricvehicles.com/products.asp?p=Edison . Either way they are proving that there is a viable alternative to vehicles that are responsible for a disproportionate share of air polution.

Jason M. Hendler

9:58am | Apr 3, 2008

Having grown up in a rural area of MO outside of St. Louis, I don't knock anyone's experience on a farm / ranch - it is all hard work; however, I can't help but laugh at the concept of a chicken rustler.

bob gee

2:34pm | Apr 3, 2008

EV's will damage the bottom line if quotas are imposed and automakers have leverage to prevent quotas...like the threat of moving operations out of California, which right now is not an option for a cash strapped state. If you want to change the CARB rules, you'll have to run for governor. Or maybe you can get that guy from the teslafounders blog...I forgot his name...to run. He seems to have time to run.

Tom

3:44pm | Apr 3, 2008

The EV market has developed quite a lot recently - even a small city like Portland OR has 2 independent EV dealers.

Of course, neither of them can sell a Tesla. But they are stocked with ZEVs from Xebra and Miles. I have read several times in the blog that the Tesla Roadster is the only ZEV in production. How can that be true when I can go buy a ZEV from a local deal today?

The world is bigger than the US, Tesla. Here's to a vibrant Asian and European market! (just decrease the hyperbole and increase the accuracy)

jonnieg

4:02pm | Apr 3, 2008

If there isn't liquid propellent going into your tank then there is no tax being collected to pay for the building and maintnence of paved roads and highways in this state and country. That is the politics not being addressed.
Find a simple way for PEVs to pay a road use tax and government will be happy.

Kevin Harney

6:00pm | Apr 3, 2008

Tom,

TM never claimed to be the only production EV. What they claimed was to be the only highway legal production EV in the USA.

How can California require something when there aren't any companies making it? I'm sorry, but a $100,000 sports car that doesn't exist and is being produced at a rate of, oh, maybe one per quarter doesn't cut it. As soon as anyone shows any sign that they might be able to make an electric car, then I'll be right at the front of the line on the ZEV requirements. But the corporations and their financial backers are going to have to do more than crank out press releases. Make some cars, why don't you? The rest will happen. People are hungry for electric vehicles.

Thomas J.

1:08am | Apr 4, 2008

Charles, the ZEV requirement is for the years 2012-2014. This is only 2008. So your claim that there aren't any this year is not even relevant. It's also untrue. I've driven this car that you claim "doesn't exist"; last year in fact. It is a real car, not just a press release.

By next year, I'll have one of my own, and so will hundreds of other people. By 2012, there will be thousands on the road, all over California, the rest of the USA, and quite likely Europe too. They won't just be Roadsters, there will also be a sedan model by then, and there will be other brands as well.

Some companies that are making lots of noise today probably won't ever deliver production vehicles. That's the way it works with new technology. But don't think that means that nobody will deliver. Tesla will deliver.

milos

1:27am | Apr 4, 2008

#
Charles Pluckhahn wrote on April 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 pm

How can California require something when there aren’t any companies making it? I’m sorry, but a $100,000 sports car that doesn’t exist and is being produced at a rate of, oh, maybe one per quarter doesn’t cut it. As soon as anyone shows any sign that they might be able to make an electric car, then I’ll be right at the front of the line on the ZEV requirements. But the corporations and their financial backers are going to have to do more than crank out press releases. Make some cars, why don’t you? The rest will happen. People are hungry for electric vehicles.#

Some people are just don't get it. A sports car that doesn't exist? And "as soon as anyone shows any sign that they might be able to make an electric car ......" Well at least 10 prototypes, 1 delivered and more in production qualifies for existing I would think, and also qualifies even more so for showing a sign etc. I don't know why I waste my time on people like this, If you're going to argue against something at least be coherent.

Kevin Harney

5:56am | Apr 4, 2008

Teddy,

You missed GE. It said that they may well take the lead in an affordable and efficient electric car very soon.

Kevin Harney

6:22am | Apr 4, 2008

Charles,

If CA requires it and those companies want to sell their products in CA then they will make it. Otherwise they choose not to sell in CA.

Charles Pluckhahn

9:37am | Apr 4, 2008

Thomas, prototypes don't count.

Kevin Harney

10:12am | Apr 4, 2008

Charles,

I guess the delivered Production cars don't count either !?!?!?!

Thomas J.

12:33pm | Apr 4, 2008

Charles, nothing counts this year, because it's 2008, and the CARB ZEV requirement is for cars in 2012-2014.

I already stated that point in my last post. It's a very simple concept, so I'm having trouble understanding why you don't get it.

Vic Cohen

1:53pm | Apr 4, 2008

Recently I rode an electric scooter, really an electric motorcycle, call the Vectrix. I had my 90 pound son on the back, and the performance was amazing. The scooter handled great and the regenerative braking really slowed the bike down. They sell for about 80K less than a Tesla and their production is raging.

Hunter

6:31pm | Apr 4, 2008

To those who complain about "no electric cars now" I'll just say that this is not the question. The question is whether with reasonable (in auto-industry terms) investment there can be electric cars at a certain volume by 2012. There is quite ample evidence that there can be. You are all acting as though mass-market production vehicles today are the only possible evidence of future capabilities, and that's just plain not right. There is quite ample evidence that such vehicles can and will be built.

On the other hand, some of those who agree with the above seem to take it too far. I'll say to them that it is in no way shape or form a forgone conclusion that Tesla or other EV manufacturers can ramp up to 10's of thousands of vehicles/year in the next 4 years. It is just as wrong to assume that they can, and say CARB is ignoring the obvious. CARB probably does not consider Tesla (or any other current EV-only shop for that matter) as a "real manufacturer" and certainly doesn't think it matters whether they tell Tesla they can't sell ICE cars in CARB markets unless they field a given number of EVs. They know they'll produce EVs no matter what...the question from their perspective is whether it's useful to hold a multi-state boycott over the heads of existing ICE manufacturers.

The middle ground is wide. In my own opinion it seems clear that GM (for instance) could easily develop, market, and sell the required number of EVs for 2012. They probably would not turn a profit doing so in the short term...but the loss involved would likely be much less than the profit lost from not being allowed to sell ICE vehicles in California and the other CARB states. So in other words, if CARB were really the gun-to-the-head threat it claims to be, it could easily force the big manufacturers to make EVs. CARB's claims that the mandate is unattainable are thus bogus. But as some have mentioned, CARB doesn't seem to have the guts for that game. Their threat is basically empty...they aren't really going to force all the major automakers out of a third of the country. It's hard to see them making that stand. So, unless they want to continue the threat and then fold up at the last minute when the automakers call their bluff (a political nightmare), they have to keep revising it to auto's taste. Which is what we're seeing. Maybe a bit disappointing, but certainly not surprising.

Charles Pluckhahn

8:27pm | Apr 4, 2008

I guess the delivered Production cars don’t count either !?!?!?!

----

Don't be so quick to deploy the plural. They've delivered one so-called "production car." Which was essentially hand-built and will have to be modified when Tesla has a tranny that works. They are a very long way from "regular production," any press releasemanship (a Silicon Valley specialty) norwithstanding. Why such a rush to claim and grant credit, anyway? Is this self-esteem and praise-junkieship gone mad? A very California concept, no? I'm not a Californian, so show us the goods, Tesla.

After you've done it long enough to convince the non-cultists that you can keep doing it, maybe then -- MAYBE -- you'll get some credit. I'll start to think that I might possibly someday being on the road to being impressed when I see some credible indication that Tesla is producing the real thing at a steady rate and (gasp) making money. Profit is the best revenge. Make a liar out of me. Please.

Peter J Hedge

5:41am | Apr 5, 2008

Re: As some others see it.

This makes for an interesting read and whilst I don't agree with everything it says, it does contain some elements of truth.

Thanks for posting that article. They left out Aptera, which seems to have a good vehicle available, so we will see if they fall into the same traps as the others.

I really think Martin's inability to deal with the transmission effectively for so, so long, and his perpetuating a disruptive stance towards Tesla after his ouster, will culminate in neither Tesla nor Martin being successful in the EV market in the long term. The sleeping giants have awakened - GM is scrambling, working 16 hour days (2 shifts?), and working multiple development threads to keep designs moving forward. They've had mules running for 6 months using NiMH battery packs, which are now finally being replaced with Li-Ion packs, with no expectation of problems due to the 6 months they bought with NiMH's. Even the UAW is on board, settling with the big 3 over longterm liabilities and pushing congress to write CAFE standards that benefit the serial hybrid configuration over the parallel hybrids already in the marketplace. GM even announced that they will have 1,000 fuel cell vehicles in CA by 2012-2014.

I don't know what Martin plans to do next, but I hope he keeps the scope down to those things he is really interested in, and leave complete system integration to a customer.

John Doe

9:03am | Apr 5, 2008

It's interesting how history reapeats itself. This reminds me of oh about over a hundred years ago of the battle of the currents between Nikola Tesla's polyphase a/c electrical system and Thomas Edisons d/c electrical system .. Edison and his cronies hated ac so much they went as far as electricuting stray dogs and even an elephant as propaganda to show the public that ac was dangerous . Sounds like the same thing with the CARB committee who are bought and paid for by the auto and oil industry to keep zero emission vehicles at a stall by saying the technology is not a ready viable alternative. All of this has nothing to do with politics or money , it's all about control.. Tesla new this and has been wiped away from history because he had a dream of freeing the world of the very thing that has motivated past empires into wars , but yet were sitting here still scratching our heads on why were sitting back at square one. Those who controlled the past control the future. The sooner we realize that , the better off we will be ..

Ricky Beane

11:46am | Apr 5, 2008

I supervise 4 pizza delivery restaurants and I drive an average of 135 miles a day and spend a lot of money on gas and oil changes going from store to store and my drivers suffer a little bit more each day as gas and oil products continue to rise. I read that your company is planning on 5 different vehicles by 2010. Do any of these vehicles fit our kind of budgets and lifestyles?

Yes there is a role for government. It is to allow the most efficient companies to compete and not subsidize the creation of companies that disobey the laws of thermodynamics. CARB is the wrong type of government. It is full of folks who have been bought off by big oil. But for once they got it correct. They are the air resources folks not the department of entropy. Toyota does not need subsidies to sell the Prius and GM will soon stand for genetically modified as they go the way of Studebaker. Don't fret we will have far less CO2 emitted from the USA as we will have less money and more expensive gasoline. CARB will do nothing but the market will cause us to drive less in more efficient cars with more passengers. Carbon taxes are not the solution to polution. Efficiency (the opposite of government) is. Hunter you need to stop watching Alfalfa and believing in convenient untruths

Charles Pluckhahn

7:21am | Apr 6, 2008

Jason, it really irritates me when you and other dreamers say things that are flatly untrue. There is no Aptera vehicle available.

James Anderson Merritt

12:43pm | Apr 7, 2008

Ricky-

ZAP is already delivering the Xebra sedan and truck, which will travel at up to 35 mph, and costs between $10K-$15K. The latter vehicle has already been used by UPS and a pizza concern (I presume, not yours) for short-haul deliveries. The stock vehicles use lead-acid batteries, and can only travel 40 miles per charge. But the truck model has been upgraded experimentally to get on the order of 150 miles-per-charge, using LiIon batteries, and there is a lot of demand to make that configuration standard for the model, or at least a dealer-installable upgrade. The truck model could be fairly easily retrofitted to carry pizzas in the back, and 35MPH is a good top speed for city surface streets. So could such a vehicle meet your needs if it could drive between 100 and 150 miles in a day? The car is not highway legal, so if the idea is that the delivery cars would also be the personal cars of the delivery staff, then the Xebra may not be for you. But for a fleet of company-owned delivery cars/trucks, to be used on surface streets and occasionally in the slow lane on 45MPH Speed Limit expressways and boulevards, the price and performance may be right.

Alternatively, you can purchase Scion xBs and have them converted to electric by AC Propulsion. I can personally attest to the zippiness of the converted vehicles (not from driving them, but from having one outmaneuver me and my ICE vehicle, leaving us in the dust on a Silicon Valley freeway!). Those who own them say the miles per charge figure is in the range that is compatible with your requirement.

On the other hand, if you're running a premium gourmet pizza establishment, perhaps it would be worth it in PR value and employee morale alone to invest in a Tesla Roadster for delivery purposes! :)

Fshhead

9:51pm | Apr 7, 2008

I recently saw an article saying the Roadster will be sold in Europe. This is great news except that we are still awaiting the completion of P2. So it's been around three weeks since production started. Seems I remember hearing it would take four weeks. Any news on how close P2 is to final assembly? Really hoping to see some videos on it soon!!!!

West

6:18am | Apr 8, 2008

Hey,

I like the idea of keeping it safe right now, because the oil companies will try to buy you guys out. We are really getting tired of Giving the people in the middle East billions of dollars for them to kill us. Please keep this idea going, so people with average income can buy your cars in couple years from now.

West

Charles Pluckhahn

10:49pm | Apr 8, 2008

Alternatively, you can purchase Scion xBs and have them converted to electric by AC Propulsion. I can personally attest to the zippiness of the converted vehicles (not from driving them, but from having one outmaneuver me and my ICE vehicle, leaving us in the dust on a Silicon Valley freeway!). Those who own them say the miles per charge figure is in the range that is compatible with your requirement.

---------

How much does the conversion cost. And what's that about "compatible with your requirement"? On lead-acid batteries you're probably talking about a practical daily range of 40 miles.

George Dudash

10:49am | Apr 11, 2008

The Tesla Roadster represents one of the most exciting advances in electric car technology since the EV-1. Unlike the EV-1, it can actually be purchased and the price tag is nearly the same as what the lease arrangement was for an EV-1 back in the 90's. For CARB to take the position that there are no serious, all electric vehicles on the market today, shows the typical lack of due dilligence at best, or sinister special interest motivations at worst and I am sick and tired of this sort of inept government performance.
The governor of the state himself, has purchased a Tesla. What the heck is wrong with you people?

CM

11:25pm | Apr 11, 2008

Pluckhahn, the information about AC Propulsion products are on their website at:http://www.acpropulsion.com/
The conversion costs $55,000, and of course the cost of an Xb - new, that is abut 13 to 18 thousand dollars, but a used one will do.

They are using LiIon batteries, for a range of 120 to 150 miles, 0-60 in 7 sec, top speed 95 mph. No, it's not as fast as the Roadster, and the per charge range is less, but it is also less expensive

Malcolm Wilson

1:13am | Apr 12, 2008

LA Times article identifies conflict of interest for CARB member Daniel Sperling:

# How much does the conversion cost. And what’s that about
# “compatible with your requirement”? On lead-acid batteries
# you’re probably talking about a practical daily range of 40 miles.

I see someone else answered your question about the cost of ACP conversion of the Scion xB. But I apologize for the confusion above. I said that ZAP cars were lead-acid (and yes, they go for about 40 miles). But in the next paragraph, I didn't make it explicit that the ACP conversion did NOT employ lead-acid batteries, but rather LiIon. That's why I said the daily range of the ACP conversion (120+ miles per charge) seemed compatible with your requirement, but I should have been clearer that the two companies used different types of batteries. I can see how easy it was for you to lump them both together.

I note that a used, 2004 xB is listed for around $9600 on Edmunds. So that would put the total cost for the converted vehicle at between $64-65K. Although even that price seems steep, you will immediately stop paying for engine tune-ups and oil changes, gasoline, smog certification and exhaust system repairs, and many other expenses of an ICE vehicle (for me, about $3000 or so per year). If you keep the car for ten years and don't need to replace the batteries in that time, you'll end up paying around $35K for the unit, all savings considered, which ends up being about $293 per month, or about $9.58 per day for routine transportation (not counting insurance, replacement tires, windshield wipers or other normal "consumables," which you would purchase for pretty much any car -- even with all those extra expenses, I think that $15/day would cover the purchase price plus routine operation and maintenance with some left over, which is, coincidentally enough, what I would pay over the same interval to own and drive my used 2004 Ford Taurus, assuming my car lasted that long and major repairs weren't necessary). Not too shabby. I haven't looked into the situation on tax-breaks or credits, but there might be gravy on that plate for you. Also, in California at least, you may also be able to get one of those little stickers that let you drive in the carpool lanes. So, if you viewed an ACP Scion conversion as a long-term transportation investment, and bought the Scion used, you'd end up about even in terms of daily cost of ownership/operation vs. a comparable ICE, you'd be "saving the planet," and driving in the carpool lanes as icing on the cake.

Seriously, if I could stand to look at the xB for ten years, I would consider getting a used one and doing the ACP conversion myself. I only hope that ACP someday picks a conversion target that I could see myself driving for a decade -- or that Tesla finally puts WhiteStars or whatever comes next on the road before that!

Charles Pluckhahn

11:14am | Apr 13, 2008

Thanks for the info, CM. I wonder if they've actually done any of those conversions. If they could bring the price down to 20 grand or so, I think they might have a real business.

Government aid to greener cars is a topic that may be discussed, in France the major steps I remember were : first a xxxx FRF help for people owning a more than 8 years old car buying a new one. And now a xxxx euro reduction on price when purchasing a car that emit less than xxx grams of CO2. All these grants were taken from petrol/tobacco taxes, and each of these measures have had a HUGE impact on sales, the average age of cars was reduced. (I purchased a new car with each of these major measures). Impact of these measures each time was surprising strong compared to government previsions.

My personal experience with a car is : i own a Honda Jazz, my daily usage is less than 24 miles for a daily 8 runs, consumption is a whopping 10,5 liter for 100 km . (4.67 Gallon per 100 miles if my conversion skills are good) - those real-life numbers are very far from the ads.

While driving i feel that most of the time is spent stopped at a red light, or moving slow in 2nd gear. The rest is heavy accelerations to climb hills.
All this is very aggressive for the mechanics, average duration of the clutch is 32,000 miles.

Apart than the awful drawback that it run on gas I consider then Honda Jazz to be the ideal car.

To that i would add : France power grid is mainly nuclear, with some exportation. Power is cheap, a full charge of the Tesla roadster would cost just under 3 euros (if my calculations are correct) Feeding my Jazz costs 48 euros.
I can pay a Tesla with 50 years of savings on petrol.

The average 5 doors small car cost is 15K euro, I am ready to go up to 30K euro for the same car but EV, with one gear and 150 miles range, 95mph top speed, the top criteria for choice are : volume of the trunk, radius to turn, modurlarity, ease of use of interior space.

My bottom line is: EVs are expensive, so unless their price lowers to a gas car level, a government financial aid is required.
EV to the general public !!

Wouldn’t it be great if Tesla bought Chrysler out of receivership, just to grab the Jeep product line, and make those EV’s and REEV’s. Imagine how those vehicles could climb terrain. They might want the Dodge nameplate, for their RAM pickups and muscle cars.//
=========
Yeah, should cost about $5, give-or-take! ;)

Different numbers being throw around here; where was the announcement that production would drop from 1,000 to 100 for 2008? Must have missed that one.

Mark Alli

9:00am | Apr 17, 2008

I believe in the vision of your company and also believe that a company like yours is long over due. I know that I will be in line to buy your proposed car, codenamed the "Bluestar". I myself would have liked to join your company in any capacity, but I live in Canada, and am well established there. I also am very impressed with the solar panel initiative that your company promotes. This vision of the future that you have, where every family is a self contained and efficient unit unto themselves is something I believe in as well. Not only using less energy, but also providing energy in the main power grid by the way of solar enery. I tip my hat to you.

The only comment I have is that why are solar panels not concave, rather than flat. This way any reflected energy can be focused on a single point and absorbed, similar to a satelite dish for TV. Anyway its probably an dumb idea, but I thought I would mention it.

Mark Alli:
There are many approaches to solar designs. Several involve focusing the light to improve efficiency and cost. The down side is that they have to be mounted on motorized frame to always point at the sun. The tracking system increases cost and for residential applications makes it more of an eyesore. It is not a dumb idea, but there is no clear winner.

I've seen this kind of government action before and am happy you're calling the CARB on this one. In the early 90's my company amepox developed Lead Free, VOC Free and CFC free solder to meet the "No Lead in the manufacture of automobiles" clause of the Federal Highway mandate. Alphametals and a few of our competitors tried to purchase us to gain the technology. We didn't sell and when ICI, DuPont, Hearaus and alphametals couldn't duplicate the technology CAPITAL HILL was lobbied and that clause was removed from the Federal Highway Mandate. We had invested millions to become the technology leader in NOTHING. It is what killed that business. Around the same time we worked with Chaz Habba who's Planet Electric was looking to have amepox provide high quality screen printable silver and other raw meterials for a very unique battery. That electric car company also died. I hope you discover who has poisoned CARB because this level of inebtness is usually the result of some outside influence. We're seeing it again with our geo-differential power generation business at geovolta but we won't be defeated by our misguided government. Keep the pressure on the CARB to maintain ZEM; it not only is possible but it's what's right for the nation. Cheers, Andrew Butte

chava ramirez

1:42pm | Apr 23, 2008

i have a golf cart that i modefied and i havent charged it for 4 mounts e-mail me if intrsted

Charles Pluckhahn

5:34pm | Apr 26, 2008

I'm pretty curious about something called Think City from Think, a Norwegian producer. There are already some reviews out there and they seem promising. Range of 100 miles or so, top speed of 60-65 mph, costs about 20 grand. Looks like they're on the brink of production, too. Reading between the lines of their releases, something tells me this one's for real although I've been disappointed before.

The downside, of course, is that they're in bed with Kleiner Perkins and RockPort Capital. Every time I see a VC involved in one of these things, I can't help but wonder where the lie is. That said, every so often a VC is right (read: lucky) about something, so I don't just want to automatically assume that this one is nothing but a press release as so many electric car companies have been. Has anyone here heard of Think? One thing I'm wondering is whether this is going to be an NEV or whether it'll be a real car, only electrified. Call me a self-indulgent a-hole, but I require a safety cage if I'm going to use one of these things.

But I'll tell you, if they (ahem) do what they say they're going to do, the world will belong to these guys, along with about 20,000 of my dollars first chance I get.

Lackluster

5:05pm | Apr 27, 2008

I realize that this is too far in the past to be righted, but the blogs has become rather lackluster since the departure of the founder. Transparency made Tesla Motors the kind of business I would throw away a fortune on without seeing the product. As Tesla bides its time without a true visionary behind the wheel, more and more rumor and skepticism will tarnish the once polished and likable image. Musk is visionary, but for all the wrong reasons.

CM

10:45pm | Apr 27, 2008

Pluckhahn: Think was originally started by Ford Motor Co. back when California had a "Zero Emissions Vehicle" mandate, and it made a few EVs, but when the ZEV mandate was cut, Ford sold Think and most of the EVs to a Norwegian concern. The Think cars are freeway capable, but until recently had rather modest range. Improved batteries have helped boost the range.

Think plans to start selling to the European market first, but they've already opened offices in the US to plan for the US market.

Malik harris

2:03am | Apr 28, 2008

I am a Gulf War Veteran and I have Founded Veterans Against Foreign Oil, because I am so tired of every generation of young Americans, British, and others have to go to war over Oil or Oil rich nations due to some power struggle. However, I we used this technology it would reduce America's dependency on Foreign Oil. When ever the President uses that quote "reduce our dependency on oil he send 25,000 more troop to Iraq. However, this is a company of thinkers and it make feel glad that somebody really care, and is trying to doing something different.

I am an old soldier, and some call me a Hero, however, you guys are my Hero's

and my organizations VAFO Veterans Against Foreign Oil would love to endorse this product. This is a GREAT IDEAL

Malik Harris
Sacramento, CA

Charles Pluckhahn

11:00am | Apr 28, 2008

If that Think car comes out on time, performs as advertised, and rides as good as a typical subcompact, I don't think any mandates or subsidies will be necessary. The biggest issue will be the company's ability to fill more than a million orders. I'm starting to feel a little sorry for Tesla, though. I think they've missed their window and will either go out of business or be sold to someone who can manufacture cars.

Darin

4:33pm | Apr 29, 2008

Good direction that Tesla motors is taking, but the term ZEV has always bothered me since anything that requires energy is responsible for some level of emissions, someplace. Electric vehicles shift the emission from the tailpipe to the electric generating facilities which are some of our BIGGEST polluters on earth via toxic mercury and other chemical emissions that have a significantly greater effect on climate change than tailpipe CO2. Do some research on carbon equivalents and you'll find quite a few compounds that are much worse per unit mass than CO2...

Hansen

10:32pm | Apr 29, 2008

You know, the Think! company posted about 40 million $ in Tesla, for licensing Teslas batterypack, I guess thats how Think! got its new improved range.

Chuck Holmes

8:27pm | May 1, 2008

I'm curious. Just exactly how many Teslas have been made since March 17 ? Is there actually production?

What a great looking car! I love the electric concept. I would buy one in a heart beat, but I don't have that kind of money. Do you guys plan on building one for regular people, you know the working poor people of America!

That sure is a stunning car. But why is it not powered by free of pollution and cost, ZERO POINT ENERGY, also a Tesla invention?

A serious question.

Peter Duffy.

CM

4:38pm | May 7, 2008

Peter Duffy: Nikola Tesla did not invent "Zero Point Energy", that concept wasn't developed from quantum physics until after his death. Moreover, it is still a concept, no one has yet found any practical way of getting usable energy from quantum fluctuations in empty space. Of course, that hasn't stopped the scam artists from using the words in their bafflegab to sell their bogus "free energy" devices to the scientifically illiterate.

Nikola Tesla did develop a method for wireless transmission of power, but it was inefficient and potentially hazardous.

I don't suppose you plans to start exporting to New Zealand in the near future? I guess not...... On a slightly more serious note Meridian Energy in NZ is one of the largest electricity suppliers and is also certified 100 % carbon zero (lots of hydro and wind). They have publically announced that they will be trialing electric vehicles in New Zealand. Perhaps you can contact them and i will get to see a Tesla in NZ after all. I can only wish....

Philip B Kirschner

10:59pm | May 9, 2008

I live in the state of NY and work as a policy advisor to politicans. I am sure the state of new york would be more than willing to bring this company to our stte.
My personal opinion is follow the political campaign contributions. If i was advising tesla motors, i would have them hire private investagators and scan through contribution lists. I will bet that GM and Exxon Mobil have thier hands in this change. I think a ballot intitiave is in order to protect this company. Even though, Tesla is p is catering to the wealhy right now, they might be willing to license thier innovations and seek support from the power generation industry. They are going to need major industrial partnerships to survive. I am surprised they have not hired an skilled lobbiest to deal with this issue.

Thank You,
Philip B Kirschner
Brooklyn, NY

P.S. Telsa should approach th candidates.

Richard Wright

10:53am | May 16, 2008

The big battle for Tesla, God bless it, will be the lobbying efforts of the well-funded oil and gas companies to maintain the status quo. Having worked extensively in corporate communications, I believe their most powerful strategy won't be direct confrontation - that's too honest - rather they will use mis-direction to muddy the waters and send R&D and government bodies spinning off towards unworkable, doomed tangents such as ethanol, hydrogen or "better gas mileage" projects.
In short, do anything to direct people away from the electric car since it now is now a viable reality and, we hope, within financial reach of the average car buyer in a few years. As experts say, there is still a trillion dollars worth of oil in the ground and that's business to be done, according to Big Oil. So they'll commission articles like "Stalling out on Electric Avenue" as propaganda, cheat, lie and lobby like you wouldn't believe. Though I'm a Canadian, living in Canada, I see this as a time for every consumer in North America and around the world to keep a close eye on theirelected representatives,educate them on the developments in the electric car industry, and force them to articulate a position on same. Then watch them to see if their actions support their articulation. If they don't, check their bank accounts via demanding accountability. Tesla has delivered the goods and will continue to do so but its up to us to spread the word and hold our politician's feet to the fire to support electric car initiatives. Keep in mind government also makes lots of money off oil and gas taxes. Filling a car from home for $5.00 electricity won't be popular.

Andy

3:52pm | May 24, 2008

Plug-In Electric Vehicles 2008: What Role for Washington?

Climate Change, Energy, Environment

Event Summary
On June 11 and 12, the Brookings Institution and Google.org will host a conference to examine electric vehicles, their potential to reduce oil dependence and the role of federal policy in promoting them.

Want an electric car? Google "VW Rabbit electric" and you can still buy a kit developed in 1983 by PG&E for less than $5,000. Buy your Tesla in the Palo Alto showroom, drive in the dark, in the rain, in stop&go rush hour traffic to downtown San Francisco (wipers, headlights,passenger, heat, radio), have dinner at the Mark and you will PUSHING the over-sold, over-priced, chunk of fiberglass and laptop batteries back down I-5. That is a FACT. Oh wait -- no, you could wait 12 hours to recharge it, so stop at Home Depot for a very long extension cord. What a joke. Only a Silicon Valley pseudo-eco fool would would buy one -- and it will NEVER change the change transportation paradigm. We are gagging on the hype guys, which is why your showroom is overstuffed with this centuries Edsel.......

David Noetzli

6:27pm | Apr 19, 2010

The problem is that CARB cannot decide what to do. They are vacillating, and this is killing business. If businesses know what the CARB plan is, they can invest in the future.